Introduction
The history of struggle for Indian independence cannot be imagined without considering the role of Muhammad Ali Jinnah Mahomedali Jinnabhai reverently addressed as Quaid-E-Azam as well as Baba-E-Quam in Pakistan. He was born in Karachi on twenty fifth December 1876. Very little is known of his siblings except Fatima who cared for him in his last days. His second wife was a Parasi young fashionable lady namely Rattanbai Petil, twenty four years yonger to him. She was daughter of his friend Sir Dinshaw Petil. The marriage was widely criticized by the Parsis as well as Jinnah's relatives. Jinnah also got a taste of his own medicine when his daughter Dina also married a Christian against his well. She even retorted that she had just followed the example of her own father. The relations between the father and daughter were far from normal.
Brief life history
Jinnah was no doubt a man of firm determination. Although he was a firm secularist in his early life, later experience convinced him that the Muslims would not get due space in Hindu India. Hence he became not only a supporter of separate homeland for Muslims but also founder and key architect of new state- Pakistan carved out of undivided India. He even sacrificed his health for the cause of Pakistan. He suffered from deadly disease tuberculosis known only to his sister Fatima and some others. He delibrately kept this secret for the sake of his aim. He knew that others would take undue advantage.of his sickness. His fear was very true. Many years later, Mountbatten stated that if he had known Jinnah was so ill, he would have stalled, hoping Jinnah's death would avert partition.
After long and bitter struggle, finally on third June 1947, the announcement of creation of state of Pakistan was formally announced on Radio by Mountbatten, Nehru, Jinnah and Sikh leader Baldev Singh. Although not in script, Jinnah concluded his address with 'Pakistan Zindabad". Jinnah went from Delhi to Karachi in Mountbatten's plane. On 14th August, Pakistan became independent. Jinnah was appointed first Governor General of Pakistan. Despite his poor health, Jinnah worked tirelessly for consolidation of Pakistan, supervising refugee rehabilation. Pakistan had to cope with problems of staff shortage as many employes had gone to India or back to Britain. Pakistan had also to get share of assets in undivided India.
Jinnah died on Eleventh September 1948, just a year after formation of Pakistan.
A brilliant career
Jinnah was very successful in legal profession. at the age of twenty, he was offered salary of Rs. 1500/ P.M. In those days this amount was very attractive. But Jinnah refused this offer. He hoped to earn Rs. 1,500/- daily and he really did. There is a proverb- If you can kiss the queen, don't touch the maid. Jinnah meticulously followed this. If you accept anything lesser than what you deserve, you cannot rise high. But Jinnah was not greedy. He was just ambitious. The fee for legal service is not only income but also also a measurement of career success. As first Governor General, he accepted only token remuneration of Rupee one per month. Although he was meticulous in dress code, he was essentially simple. What is simplicity? Simplicity means that you adopt the normal practice. Wearing loin cloth is no simplicity. This is just a way to get attraction. Once Sarojani Naidu remarked that Gandhi's simplicity is very costly to the nation. Jinnah was simple in temperament. He was not interested in getting title like 'Sir' or 'Lord'. When Lord Reading Viceroy suggested knighthood, Jinnah just replied- "I prefer to be plain Mr. Jinnah".
He was very self confident and self respecting. British minister Edwin Montagu wrote in his memoirs that Jinnah was young, perfectly mannered, impressive looking, armed to the teeth with dialetics and insistent on the whole of his scheme. Once a magistrate said in the court- "Mr. Jinnah, remember that you are not addressing a third class magistrate". Jinnah promptly retorted- "My Lord, allow me to warn you that you are not addressing a third class pleader." One very famous case that he pleaded is known as 'caucus case'. It was alleged that a causus of Europeans rigged the Bombay Municipal elections so as to keep Pheroze Shah Mehta out of council. Jinnah could not win the case of Pherozeshah Mehta but this gave a boost to his career and image as a lawyer.
Western values
Jinnah was impressed by western life style and ideas of liberalism and democracy. He also adopted western dress. He was very particular about dress. However, in later years with shift to Islamic way of life, he adopted Achakan and Jinnah cap. He was for rule of law. He was a born aristocrat. He is known for liberal tipping in restaurants. He would never get back any balance after paying a bill. He would just give one note may be Rs. 100/- which was big in those days. Even if the bill were for Rs. twenty only, he would not wait to get back the balance. He was in the moderate group of congress that included eminent personalities like Dada Bhai Naoroji, the grand old man of India, Gopal Krishna Ghokhale and Pheroze Shah Mehta. He was opposed to the Khilafat movement in North Western Frontier province as well as the non cooperation movement of Mahatma gandhi. He considered these as anarchy. He was a firm believer in rule of law. He wanted independence through constitutional means. That is why British preferred him. During quit India movement, most Congress leaders were in jail. Then he got higher recognition by the British as sole leader of Muslim commuinity.
Believer in Rule of law and considered Satyagraha as anarchy
No doubt, non cooperation non violence was significant part of independence movement. However Jinnah viewed this as anarchy. In recent period, the views of Jinnah have assumed significance. We have witnessed many such movements by present day Gandhis in the national capital in the name of fighting corruption and introducing anti corruption legislation. If such trend is unabated, we are doomed to a state of chaos and anarchy. Jinna's criticism of Gandhian Satyagraha as 'anarchy' is not so unreasonable. If Gandhi could severely oppose the armed revolutionaries as 'terrorists', what is wrong if Jinnah considers the Gandhian Satyagraha as 'anarchic.'
Secularist and symbol of Hindu Muslim unity in early days
He was a secular in the beginning. He was considered a symbol of Hindu Muslim unity. He even opposed seperate electorates for Muslims although ironically he was elected as Bombay's Muslim representative on the imperial Mulim council from Muslim constituency. It is relevent to quote Gopal Krishna Ghokhale, who stated that "Jinnah has true stuff in him and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him the best ambassador of Hindu- Muslim unity."
It may be considered a paradox that despite his being an ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity by a great leader like Gokhale, he became a votary of Two nation theory and founder of a state based on religion carved out of united India. Such contradiction in his approach arises mainly from element of fear in the Muslim community. Though Jinnah did not particpate in religious rituals and was religiously neutral, he very much belonged to the Muslim community and shared all the fears. However, according to Akbar Ahmad, Jinnah rediscovered his own Islamic roots, his sense of identity, of culture and history, which would come increasingly to the fore in the final years of his life.". It is noticable that Jinnah put on Muslim dress in late 1930s.
Political activities
Jinnah started his political career in Congress. He was member of the Home League formed in 1916 for securing more rights to Indians in adminsitation. The League aimed only for getting a dominion status within the British Empire. Later when Congress opted for complete independence and adopted Satyagraha movement, Jinnah opposed. The tide was against him. Jinnah was shouted down. He left Congress in disgust. Then onwards, he was only in Muslim League.
He did not find favor with Simon commission report that denied Indians any role in mater of constitutional reforms. In 1928, British government accepted the view that Indians be involved in framing own constitution. Moti Lal Nehru committee submitted a report outlining the proposed constitution. India would be a dominion within the British Commonwealth. The structure would be federal. There would be division of functions between center and the states. The residuary powers would be with center. Language of the state would be Indian viz. Hindi, Tamil etc but English would also be used. There would be secularism and no separate religion based constituencies but there would be reservations of seats proportionate to population. Three round table conferences were held but there could be no agreement. Jinnah did not accept the Simon Commission and Moti Lal Nehru report as these did not adequately safeguard the interets of Muslims. Apart from Muslim League, Khilafat also did not accept the Nehru report.
Jinnah submitted fourteen points that included separate constituencies based on religion and that residiuary powers in the constritution should be with states and not center. Jinnah understood that Muslims were in minority in India and so the states should have more power. The Muslim majority states of Punjab and North Frontier Province could enjoy more autonomy and power if the fourteen points were accepted. The Congress leaders did not favorably consider the Jinnah's fourteen point programme. No doubt this inability of the Congress to consider Jinnah's fourteen points was a significant factor that led to partition of India. In fact fourteen points were a precondition for United India. All that Jinnah required was that there be seperate electoral lists for each community on basis of population. This would ensure that minorities would get due representation in legislature according to respective population. The Congress leaders did not favorably consider Jinnah's fourteen points.
Refusal by Congress to give any heed to fourten points of Jinnah led to frustration. Moreover the Congress provincial governments did not understand the culture and aspirations of Muslims in their jurisdiction. There were many in Congress for whom Hindi and ban on cow slaughter were important. Congress did nothing to restrain the supposedly Hindu oriented leaders in its ranks. Naturally, the Muslims felt insecure.
The creation of Pakistan state goes more to the credit of noted poet Iqbal. In 1930, Muhammad Iqbal called for a state for Muslims in India. There was exchange of leters between Iqbal and Jinnah. Iqbal persuaded Jinnah to be more active. Jinnah spared no efforts to accomplish the creation of Pakistan. In February 1940, a formal resolution demanding separate state of Pakistan was adopted in Lahore. Two nation theory was the basis of carving state of Pakistan out of India. The theory simply means that Hindus and Muslims are distinct nations even though living in same territory.
The reaction of Congress leaders to the Lahore resolution was very aggressive though Gandhi was somewhat restrained. Pt Nehru referred to the Lahore resolution as 'Jinnah's fantastic proposals whereas C. Rajagopalachari considered this "a sign of a diseased mentality". In absence of any reconciliatory attitude, Jinnah's campaign for Pakistan became more aggressive. Jinnah commented- "Pakistan is a matter of life or death for us." Muslim League won all seats reserved for Muslims in Constituent Assembly. The Muslim League polled 75% of the Muslim vote. Jinnah's biographer Bolitho views that- "This was Jinnah's glorious hour: is arduous political campaigns, his robust beliefs and claims were at last justified." By end of 1946, The Muslim League came strongly in favour of a fully sovereign Pakistan with dominion status.
The British Government decided to transfer power to India latest by June 1948. The announcement of independence as well as partion of India was announced in a joint broadcast by Lord Mountbatten, Nehru, Jinnah and Sikh leader Baldev Singh. Jinnah concluded his address with the words- "Pakistan Zindabad".
The Punjab and Bengal assemblies opted for Pakstan. North west Frontier Province followed suit. Jinnah was appointed Pakistan's first Governor General. Significantly, even after partition of the country and formation of Pakistan- Muslim homeland, Jinnah was still secular at heart. He served interests of Muslim community but would not favor a state based on Islamic fundamentalism. He still hoped that state would have nothing to do with religion or worship, which was personal affair of citizens. He addressed the new constituent assembly of Pakistan in these words- " You are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in the state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or creed- that has nothing to do with the state." On 14th August 1947, Pakistan got independence. One observer commented on Jinnah- "Here indeed is Pakistan's King Emperor, Archibishop of Canterbury, speaker and prime minister concentrated into one formidable Quaid-E-Azam
Jinnah's role in problems of infant Pakistan
Pakistan suffered massively from unprecented riots/ massacre in the early period or formation of Pakistan. It may be correct to say that Jinnah could not be soley responsible for the massacres. May be situation was so bad and emotive that he could not control. British government also can't be considered absolutely blame free regarding massacres during the process of transfer of power. It will not be out of place to reproduce here the views of Christopher Beaumont, Radcliffe's private secretary that "Mountbatten must take the blame- though not the sole blame- for the massacres in Punjab in which between 500,000 to a million men, women and children perished."
Jinnah personally supervised the rehabilation of refugees. He also had to deal with the issue of division of assets between India and Pakistan. It will be relevant to point oiut here that Mahatama Gandhi had to threaten with fast unto death if Pakistan was not paid due share of assets. Pakistan was entitled to one sixth of assets in united India. The threat by Mahatma Gandhi to go on indefinite fast for payment of due proportionate assets to Pakistan led to his assasination. It goes to credit of Jinnah that he worked tirelessly for consolidation and placing Pakstan on sound footing despite his poor health.
In a radio broadcast addressed to people of U.S.A., Jinnah clearly said that he could not exactly say what the constitution of Pakistan would be but he was sure that this would be democratic as Islam itself is based on democratic values. In words of Jinnah- " The constitution of Pakistan is yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Asembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of the constitution is going to be but I am sure that it will be a democratic type embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today these are applicable in actual life as these were 1300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan."
On Jinnah's death, Pt Nehru stated: "How shall we judge him? I have been very angry with him often during the past years. But now there is no bitterness in my thought of him. Only a great sadness for all that has been. He succeeded in his quest and gained his objective but at what a cost and with what a difference from what he had imagined."
The Quaid E Azam rests in Mazar-e-Quaid mausoleum in Karachi. It will not be wrong to say that the state of Pakistan by itself is in memorium of Jinnah. To quote Mohiuddin- " He was and continues to be as highly honored in Pakistan as George Washington in the United states. Pakistan owes its very existence to his drive, tenacity and judgment. Jinnah's importance in creation of Pakistan was monumental and immeasureable."
Could Partition of India be avoided
Many blame Jinnah only for the creation of Pakistan and partition of India. We need give serious thought to the fact that Jinnah in spite of all his secularism ultimately was instrumental in division of the country. What appears is that Jinnah and Muslim League feared the majority community. If the Congress had seriously considered the apprehensions of minorities, partition of India could be avoided. The two nation theory may not be correct. In fact, Jinnah got support only in Bengal, Punjab and N.W. Frontier provinces. Most Muslims in India were with Congress.
Indian leadership denied the two nation theory but also acceted that there is unity in diversity. The phrase 'unity in diversity' recognizes the differences. It will be relevant to point out here that there were other divisiove tendencies also. There are still Sikh terrorists claiming Khalistan. These terroists were killing non Sikhs in Punjab. They also killed the police personnel. These activities necessitated Blue star operation to combat the Khalistani terrroists hiding and operating from golden temple. Indira Gandhi, Prime minister was killed by terrorists working as her body guards. This is just to bring home the point that Muslim League was not the only separist religious group.
There were some Hindu fundamentalist organizations working in the garb of religious and cultural organization. It is not correct to say that Jinnah and his Muslim League alone believed in two nation theory. Rashtriya Syayam Sewak Singh, described India as Hindu Rashtra. There were rank communal elements in Congress also for whom Hindu, Hindi and Hindustan were identical terms. Does Hindu Rashtra not mean that non Hindus are not genuine citizens but foreign elements. Often, the saffron organizations and even their sympatehizers in Congress proclaim that India has been under foreign rule for thosusand years. Rather they say that Hindus (not non Hindus) were under foreign rule for thousand years. They include the period of Muslim rule also as foreign rule. There was even move to bring the RSS members in the congress fold but assasination of Mahatma Gandhi put an end to such efforts. Their pet issues were promoting Hindi and banning cow slaughter. This alienated not only religious minorities but also non Hindi speaking south Indians. Consequently, Dravida Kazagam was established by Ramaswamy Naikar. The Dalits or scheduled castes were also ill treated by upper caste Hindus. It is also worthwhile to point out that the Hindus in Punjab were persuaded by the saffron groups to mention Hindi and not Punabi as mother tongue. This appears very bizare that a Hindu Punabi may disown his own mother tongue and mention Hindi as his mother tonguie. This resulted from the concept of Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan. It goes without saying that the apprehensions of Jinnah and Muslim Leagure were not so ill founded. Once Jinnah said- Every Indian is not Gandhi. He could trust Gandhi but not other Congress leaders.
It can be safely concluded that if the Congress had shown greater foresight and removed the apprehensions of Muslims and other minorities, division of India and creation of Pakistan could be avoided. Jinnah's demand for greater autonomy to states and restraining the Hindu communal forces could certainly help to keep entire nation united and avoid partition of India
Images are from wikipedea
I attended my first political meeting more than three decades ago. Thereafter I have been attending these meetings on and off. The arrangements at the meetings then were directly in proportion to the political importance of the speaker. The stage was a visibly a ramshackle arrangement barely able to accommodate a handful of persons. There were no arrangements for seating the audience. Beyond a certain distance from the stage the speakers voice would hardly be audible. Any ground big or small was good for holding a meeting.
There were no party volunteers herding people to attend the meetings, though some form of elementary propaganda was done, but mainly for informing people about the meeting. The meetings would start without much hassle and the main speaker would come on to address very fast. The mood of the public was not of listening with rapt attention but the joy of participating in the electoral process.
I have attended many meetings but till recently never heard any speakers speak nasty words or hit below the belt. Opponents were treated with respect even when being criticized. The battle was ideological and not personal. It was also the period in the mid seventies and early eighties when many a veteran leader was finishing his political career and many times people went to see him for perhaps the last time. Remember there was no TV then.
I remember attending meetings of certain leaders who are today very big names where the crowd they addressed was not more than say 200 persons. Yet they wold speak with passion and move on to the next meeting. I remember walking away from a meeting because the speaker was shouting at the top of his voice and there were hardly a 100 persons. In course of time this politician was to aspire for the highest post in the country and is active today also.
I remember seeing politicians like Raj Narain who looked like a wrestler and spoke in a rustic Hindi with Bhojpuri accent. The public simply loved to hear him though a majority may not agree with his views. Similarly other powerful speaker was Acharya Kripalini who spoke with a distinct Sindhi accent and would speak in a halting manner. He was respected by the crowds for he was a freedom fighter. Another powerful yet humourous speaker was Piloo Modi. He had a very wide girth and spoke with a Parsi accent and abandon. His speech was full of satire and crowds lapped them and cheered him on. S K Patil the boss of then Bombay Congress would speak in a low voice and ramble on and on. Mohan Dharia one of the three Young Turks of the then Congress was another powerful speaker worth listening.
I also attended once a meeting in Srinagar which was addressed by Sheikh Abdullah at the height of his popularity. He was not a good orator but spoke with considerable conviction. His speech was more of an educative fashion wherein he was as if teaching his audience rather than addressing them in a political manner. He could raise the passions of the crowds whenever he wanted to.
One of the most charming meetings I attended was when a moderate crowd was addressed by the charming Rajmata Gayatri Devi in a town in Rajasthan. It was like she was coversing with the people rather than addressing them. Her beauty and poise were held in awe by all of us in the crowd and I remember thinking how could any one oppose her!
This was the same feeling I got listening to the diminutive Lal Bahadur Shastri who also could bond with the crowds instantly and they loved to hear him speak in a simple language. After the victory in 1965 war over Pakistan his mere appearance on the stage was enough to electrify the crowds. Alas he departed much before his time.
However it was Indira Gandhi who stole the show. By those days standards the stage used to be somewhat bigger and bit more decorative. Because of security arrangements lot many security personnel would be all over the meeting venue. Normally the attendance in her meetings would be very high. She was held in high esteem and many also saw her as a representative of the Nehru family which at that time was held in high esteem. She would speak in a shrill voice and also be more conversational in style. She would rarely be shouting in her addresses. The audience would respond to her appreciatively. However in the elections immediately after withdrawal of emergency I saw relatively thin crowd at her election rally.
The scene has dramatically changed today. A political meeting is now treated like an event management exercise. The center of attention is the stage. At a very high cost the stage is sought to be made as elaborate as possible. In fact many a time stages are based on a particular theme. Gone are the days when the audience would be sitting or standing on the bare ground. Now a days chairs or benches are hired in hundreds and thousands to make the audience comfortable. In some meetings I have heard food and cold drinks are served. The sound arrangements are very efficient and cover the whole ground. These days security arrangements are also very strict.
However it is unfortunate that the speeches have now become more personal than before. Attacking the opponent personally is now resorted to rather than attacking their ideology. This has introduced an element of crudeness in the public discourse. Today's speakers do not show restraint and resort to attacking communities, religions and castes with impunity. There is no question of an apology later on. They deny what they have said even when it is recorded and is being shown repeatedly on TV channels. Fear of loss of prestige is no longer an issue. The impression has gained ground that one has to take hard stands, speak tough, abuse if necessary and no need to retract if it is demanded later on. Almost all parties are resorting to these tactics, some more and some less. It seems there is a competition in how crude and nasty one can get.
Instead of engaging in political debates, the political leaders today are shooting sharp barbs at each other. These are lapped up by the TV channels. It seems many times that the leaders are speaking so harshly to increase the TRP's of the various channels. Such vitiated has become the political atmosphere that secularists are portrayed as communalists and vice versa.
Meetings are now more like a clinical affair, to be finished fast as the waiting helicopter will take the leader to another meeting. A leader is like a busy film star who has multiple shootings to attend in a day. Content and reasoning has taken a back seat. The easy thing to do is to attack the opponent. Many in the audience seem to like it. Meetings are now more of an 'organized and managed' affair.
What a contrast to the earlier days when meetings were a more leisurely affair than the high pressure drams of today. But that is the change one has to accept.
Introduction:
No self righteous people can stay silent against continuous offenses against their mother tongue. Throughout the world, most revolutions happen to safeguard and preserve languages. History shows how many languages are turning into dead languages due to inactive users and insensitivity towards their own languages. Language is the medium of communication. Language is a way of human communication, intends to transfer gestures consisting of words in structured and grammatical manner. Languages are unique and it differs from region to region. Language grows with time and it adds additional vocabulary from environmental influences. It restricts to a particular community and region. Mortal mind is difficult to read and language gives proper and systematic communicative mediums to express thought process arising out of complex emotional syndromes. Own language is the most lovable language which empowers the person to speak freely and easily. There are numerous functional languages in the world. Recent live example of revolution over protection of indigenous languages happened at Crimea. Spoken languages are at the heart of our concern. Languages can give alternative explanations without any such theoretical prejudice and with it comes the significant communicative mediums which can systematically link to each other. Language is an exclusively human property. Languages have double articulation and syntax. These two separate one language from the other. Languages have numerous signs, which are an association of forma and meanings. Most part of communication of languages go with signs and form factors. It bestows a dashboard of meaning of different set of communicative mediums with which every language can convey certain specific meanings. So, this goes on show languages are important and it has deep values attached to it. It is embedded within society and entangled with customs. Human being can be in a position to distinguish huge number of signs and can correlate these with custom forms.
A human being can distinguish among distinct set of laughs and can derive different meanings of laughs coming out of it. But, it seems intrusive and it varies from person to person. Even forms of languages changes within few kilometers and so as the signs attached with these forms undergo deep changes. It leads to creation of unique meanings of some expressions. It can lead to profound disturbances within same linguistic communities. This leads to creation of dual articulation theory which brings upon the concept of syntax. The concept of syntax restricts inventory of signs to a precise level. There is still an upper limit to the number of signs human can remember. For this, the concept of syntax aims to reduce the number of signs for the convenience of humans. All these go on to prove how essential is the concept of language and how humans cannot leave without one language. Possession of languages gives ingenious inventory of signs which create “talking men”. Humans cannot leave without speaking anything. For this they have invented languages and phonetics. Humans love to articulate in their mother tongue. When outsiders try to implement their wish and stop the free flow of talk with their mother tongue, natural reactions come from their inner perception to revolt and show aggression to the aggressor.
History of Crimea:
After dissolution of erstwhile USSR (United Soviet Socialist Republic), many parts of it were divided into separate independent states. Similarly, Ukraine was formed but some part of it constituted area predominated by Russian-speaking population. Since, the beginning they were not interested to keep people who speak a separate Ukrainian language. Crimea was in the state of Ukraine which comprises over 95 percentages of Russian-speaking people. They never accepted Ukraine as their own land. In a plebiscite, people of Crimea decided to join Russia and divide their ways from Ukraine. United States and EU are very angry with these latest developments happenings in and around the Black sea area. They are reacting angrily. They have moved a resolution to remove Russia from G-8 (Group of Nations). Nevertheless, it seems this matter does not end here. Eminent political thinkers are anticipating for a considerable time war, over different parties over the forced occupation of Crimea Island in Russia.
Citizens of Crimea are under intense stress and duress under exploitative aristocratic rulers of Ukraine. People of Crimea are now enjoying and enticing the moments of joy of freedom with open hearts and smiles. They are shouting “We are free” and are dancing on the streets with hands open to sky. They are rejoicing every moment and celebrating their times of joy. For them, the day of liberation from villainous Ukraine rules is principal days of reckoning. Crimea is an island in the Black Sea. It is famous for tourism. Crimea controls most part of navigation routes of the Black Sea. Everywhere, at the Crimea, flags of Russia are floating which signifies acceptance of Russia rather than Ukraine. It all started from November 2013, when Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych decided not to sign the controversial planned association agreement with EU. Viktor Yanukovych is supporter of Russia and for this he decided not to sign this agreement, which predominantly encourages governments to declare one language as the national language. Majority Ukranian people ensured demonstrations in the capital Kiev. President Viktor wanted peace so he did not want to dilute peaceful codependence of Russian and Ukrainian people.
US and EU capitalist ambitions:
US and EU tried hard to fuel the fire within Ukrainian people to enrage them to create aggression and pressure, then Russia supported President Viktor to announce Ukraine as the sole national language. Their other demand includes de-recognition of Russian as second languages. This includes closure of Russian schools and language mediums and speaking of Russian languages in open is offensive. Some EU foreign ministers initiate mediation and after long consulting process, it was agreed to form to form a unity government. President Viktor disappeared from Ukraine after violent demonstrations and power were captured by unity government which includes leaders supported by the EU and US. Some controversial figures who are staunch loyalist for Ukrainian nationalism, figured in the government. They pressurized the government to make an act comprising of complete banishment of Russian language from Ukraine. This creates flutters and fears of psychosis among regions which are predominantly occupied by Russian major. Crimea is one such region within administrative units of Ukraine, which first experience accomplishes back lashes against linguistic decision. Crimea is a major Russian peninsula in Ukraine. Since 1990s, after dissolution of USSR, Crimea stayed with Ukraine, instead of majority view of staying with Russia. This was a controversial decision, at that time, taken by political administrator of West, which is predicted to be catapulted into major snow ball of agitation among deeply hurt Crimea peninsula of Ukraine. Since, those times, hidden fires of angers are revolving around people of Crimea and Russia.
Over 90 percentages of Crimean population is emotionally, politically and psychologically connected with people of Russia. Additional three percentages of people consist of Tatar (Ukrainian) and Muslims. In the counter revolution in “Ukraine maidan” (Ukraine Revolution), Russian people of Crimea created stir in their local assembly locations. At first, minorities of Crimea are not part of this agitation. Slowly, all people participated in this revolution to safeguard the Russian language from the clutches of Ukrainian alien government. Russian people of Crimea are minorities in the state of Ukraine. On 14th February, Ukraine de-recognized Russian language as state language and force enforcement of Ukrainian language all over the state of Ukraine. This includes Russia majority region such as Crimea peninsula in Ukraine. Last February, on a secret mission, coveted military personnel widely thought by the West as Russian personnel, covered air-ports of Crimea and Crimea Autonomous Assembly was taken over.
Psychological warfare between Russia and Ukraine:
Last attempts made for a political settlement over this ongoing crisis were made in Paris, but it yielded no results. Russian and Crimean authorities refused to talk to those in Kiev. It followed by referendum done by Crimean authorities for annexation with the Russian Federation. Ukraine has been a country where there is a transparent vacuum of political and economic mistrust among its regions. During, Communist rule of Stalin, it saw how a great economy has been transformed into a gigantic cup of mistrust and poverty. Even after so called independence from the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) the tragic and bloody history of the 20th century is still haunted their races. All these dissatisfaction and deep rooted enmity within communities give birth to separate state movement. After dissolution of the erstwhile USSR, Ukraine has second most military power followed from Russia. Analysts believe Russia would think a hundred times before waging war against Ukraine. Removal of President Viktor under dubious situations is completely against constitutional provisions of Ukraine. Present Crimean authorities who reach power under questionable circumstances, have tried their best to control media units under Crimean authorities and presented to the world a completely opposite view of what the people of the ground saw to be done. The West appears to have been creating targeted sanctions against Russia, which they perceive Russia has violated Ukrainian sovereignty. The UK government has threatened to Russia to review all arm export licenses.
Neighboring countries of Russia are concerned about Putin’s (Russian President) policy of recreating privilege sphere of interest zones. Russia has always been of intense interest in internal matters of Crimea. The actions of Ukrainian authorities constitute anger within Crimea territory. Due to banishment of Russian language, wide spread fears among people of Crimea comprise a mass agitation in front of local assembly. People of Crimea and Ukraine confronted each other in front of parliament of Ukraine in last February. This was the last chance for Ukrainian authorities to withdraw their draconian law, aimed solely at Crimean people. But they like to go for tough action against Crimean people. This resulted in midnight takeover, of Crimean regional assembly by Russian forces. Ukrainian authority, accused President Viktor of “mass murder of peaceful citizens”, and starts probe. Germany Chancellor, called President of Russia to create a normal situation which could provide a strong and stabilized Ukraine. International Monetary Fund’s and other financial organizations prepare packages in billions to help survive Ukraine in these duress times. Everyone is confident that the crux of problem lies with financial independence of Ukraine.
Pogromists of Ukraine:
Few days later, Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov said, “armed extremists and pogromists whose actions pose a direct threat to Ukraine's sovereignty and constitutional order. ” He called them hooligans and perceived they pose greater threats to their regional sovereignty if porgomists come back to power in Ukraine. This statement holds importance, as a few years back. Russia faced the worst terrorists incidents from lands of Ukraine and specific territories. Russian parliamentarians feel, with the advent of pogromists, in the authority of Ukraine. Russia feels the pressure of the advent of extremists in immediate neighbor. Russian Parliament Duma, overwhelmingly passed a resolution to expedite the process easier for territories to join the Russian Federation. After this, non-uniformed military persons armed with heavy weapons and arms and arsenals, with no insignia, invaded local Crimea assembly overtake local assembly, and overtake all over air force units. Banished Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych appeared in the southern part of Russia. He is still arguing as the president of Ukraine and calling pogromists as the forced occupants of Ukraine authority. He is maintaining his position as not calling the Russian military for help. Russia is also not acceding that they have helped Crimea.
US and EU are equally apprehensive of nuclear power in Russia. After dissolution of the erstwhile USSR, all atomic plants stay with Russia. So far, sleepless silence of nuclear power in China also worrying world community. China is silently supporting Russian aggression of Crimea. China always sides with Russia and have been opposing any such move from US and EU groups. During confrontation of China with Japan, it got vital support from Russia over a dispute over the island of the Pacific Ocean. China is seen as supporting the Russian view point, but it is showing as if it is in a neutral position so far. Indian continues to be in the stage of neutrality and does not appear to support the West and the East. Owing to election time, Indian government cannot take vital decisions as the authority of decision making is accepted by the election commission of India. This seems to be the perfect environment for India not to take any side of a decision making body. On March 18, Russia releases its latest modified map, which shows Crimea as a state of Russia. President of Russia, Putin signs contract with regional authority of Crimea. Putin unilaterally announces Crimea as part of Russia. United Nations opposes this move, and called this action unlawful and unjustified. Russia also announced that it is not interested in acquiring other parts of Ukraine. Why there has to be Russia to acquire Crimea, even 15 years after the dissolution of the USSR?
Post soviet space and specific geo-political and social interests of Russia:
With expansionist attitude of wider Europe of the European Union, it is slowly engrossing into territory which has long discussed the sphere of national interests of Russia. The process of European enlargement creates intimate cooperation between Ukraine and Euro-Atlantic institutions. EU and Russia have been pursuing to learn how to control post-soviet space, which creates serious problems in their bilateral relations. As midterm strategy, Russia anticipates the European Union to delegate controlling power to it so that space emptied by Russia will not be gained by forces of the European Union. The idea of developing relationships between the EU and Russia is established on shared value of maintaining peaceful coexistence. EU succinctly improved related strategies were pragmatic development of Ukraine is possible through assimilation of Ukraine to Euro-Atlantic institution. Ukraine was confident the process of enlargement of the EU. Over the years western and southern part of Ukraine has the realization that the EU will no longer add to their circle and that is how they turned towards deeper cooperation with Russia.
This pragmatic approach towards Russia, gives them low gas price which helps revive their economy. However, the prospect of wider Europe, joining with the EU, is slowly vanishing; even though from time to time there have been some token symbolism gestures from EU towards Ukraine. At the onset of “Orange revolution” in 2004, some hopes rise from reviving good relationships with EU. Due to availability of the lowest gas prices, Ukraine had to curtail relations with EU. This gives the impression to the West that it had a pro-Russian president. Putin’s ambition of complete integration of former USSR constituents leads to fear among EU and US. Russian Federation introduces easier act to access and unite former constituents of the USSR and it poses greater challenges to the expansion of NATO and EU. Russia controlled the entire energy infrastructure of Ukraine and therefore it presses for further alignment of Ukraine from EU and NATO units.
Dimensions of Russia-Ukraine relationships:
After dissolution of USSR, Russia under Moscow becomes the biggest independent country. It perceives to assume a significant role in European and global security. Russia has great faith in Euro-Atlantic structures which aim at deeper cooperation with Russia and less eagerness to see Ukraine cooperating with the West. IN 2000, unwanted and unjustified intervention of NATO in dealing with Kosavo problem makes apprehension among the administrative ranks of Russia. It perceives control of the area around Russia is the ultimate strategy to build status within the European Union. After dissolution of USSR, power and status of Russia are on a constant decline in the world arena. It perceives to be done by adopting the formula of expansion and enlargement among neighboring nations to create a safe place for its own arena. Beginning of the Battle of post-soviet space (PSS) begins with the 2004 election of Ukraine. Russia supports advocates of “orange revolution” and able to create a strong space among voters. US and EU sensed it as expansion of power in Atlantic regions and most importantly the commercial voyage route of the Black Sea. Russian president continually criticized undemocratic and nuisance approach of Ukraine election and time and again throws verbal attack against Ukrainian regime and west for continuous support towards Ukraine considering the perceived risk it proposes towards Russia.
Even neutral geo-political analysts opine EU’s unwanted infringement of affairs of Atlantic zones would irritate the foremost nation on that locality. Russia being the single most dominant nation has historically been an irritant of trespasser attitude of EU. They have predicted this could in future be making of such gargantuan conflict zones and the recent development in and around the Black Sea area gives proper testimony to this. It all started with deeper infringement of pecuniary rights of the erstwhile USSR. Resulting from large scale break down of economic and financial status, in 1990s, Russia had to constantly face pressures from the EU to initiate its market to foreign players. This, increases suspicion and deep sense of anonymity towards EU and the West. During those times, EU is adopting the policy of “interventionist paradigm” on one hand and on the other it continues to perceive the policy of pressure to Russia to create a deep sense of paranoid towards attitudes of EU. This builds deep dissatisfaction among Russian who perceives to be slowly losing their financial independence from EU. It follows a dual path of an open hand with the EU as well as Russia.
Geo-economics and energy dimension:
Steel, alcohol and sugar are three prominent trade objects between Russia and Ukraine. Trade wars fought between two countries and introduction of various trade measures such as trade quotas and restrictions fueled fire between two neighboring nations. Russia introduces “Common Economic Space” (CES) which consists of a free trade zone devoid of restrictions and exceptions. Ukraine facilitates smuggling of agricultural goods to Russia, which further weakens Russian economy. Angered Russian authorities introduced sanctions without restrictions on Ukraine. This irrelevant and illogical and unequivocal sanction against Ukraine possibly goes on to prove pragmatic and free trade relations with Ukraine. The integration process could be difficult in future due to lack of trust and faith among former Soviet countries. Russia aims at penetration of different national players into different free trade zones and aims to gain significant benefits from these acquisitions. Energy giants of Russia have tried to occupy competitive spaces within European markets and they failed miserably there. Most raw material companies could not create their own spaces within world spheres.
This stems from the fact that most spaces are not vacant and people tend not to change conventional energy sources. But, Russia felt most member nations of the EU are promoting redistribution of market through bureaucratic means and supposedly obstructing smooth passage of its companies to prosper in the world market. Russia wants to get economic revenge of companies of EU nations by implementing strict gateway restrictions among former Soviet nations in order to stop a bigger middle class market of already established EU market. Principal energy companies have deep nexus within administrative elites within Moscow administrative circles. It goes to show the expansion of nation-state capitalist relationships which is infamous in pre-Soviet era. Gazprom is the biggest oil extracting company and the Russian government is promoting this company in foreign lands to purchase gas pipelines and tenders. This creates flutters within existing energy giants of EU such as France, Great Britain. This policy of expansion of national companies to different other nations is being actively pursued by Putin’s government irrespective of changed directions from EU. This mercantilism becomes central towards Russia’s foreign economic policies. This result in the creation of protectionist policies and shutting down of the open market to different EU countries. Moscow argues that the most restrictive policies aims at an open market are curved to make convenience for major EU nations. This policy of restrictive open market propelled by EU nations is also one class of pshed0-mercantilism as analysts of Russia thought it to be. It considers such attitude as discrimination against Russian business house. Unannounced ban on “Gazprom”, national energy company of Russia by prominent EU countries citing security and local issues has fueled the fire to already ignited mercantile competitiveness from both sides.
Conflict over national oil company of Russia:
Russia is rich in energy production and it is the single most prominent factor with which it can equally talk with wealthy nations on an equal footing. Russian wants major world player on energy requirements. It does not wish itself to place in a disadvantageous position of apprentice. Russia is slowly working hard to shift the power structure within the EU by implementing interventionist paradigm within former Soviet constituents. That is why Russia wants full economic control and for this it is supplying oil to Ukraine in fewer prices than west. In earlier stages, these offshore companies are paying our debt to barter systems but later on after their losses cleared. They incur heavy profits. These offshore intermediary companies have ownership of prominent political figures from Ukraine and Russia. They want good relationships between both countries so that they can monopolies oil market. West is worried over inverting oil prices and fluctuating inflation in oil energy sector is creating cause of concern among major countries of the West. Slowly, it affects their economy and inflation. They wish to break the nexus barrier between Russia and Ukraine. If this is not stopped Russia can become prosperous nation within a few years. That is why Ukraine is the bone of contention between Russia and EU.
Russia reduces gas supply to Ukraine despite a contractual agreement with the EU and Ukraine stole Russian gas from pipelines and supply in discounted prices to EU. All these results in a deep sense of anonymity and dissatisfaction among members of the EU and Russia. Russia’s nationalized oil company signed an agreement with an intermediary company to sell oil to EU nations. This creates tension within ranks of Ukraine administration as importance of the transit route through Ukraine decreases further. Ukraine goes to have to talk with intermediary company instead of Russia. This ends their bargaining power and their economy is solely based on energy supply from Russia. Slowly, this makes confusion within Ukraine and their economy begins to go on the slide. Russia slowly increases pressure and starts to interfere with politics and economies of the Black Sea region. On the other hand, members of the EU have entered into a contract with the Shtokman gas field for energy requirement and compel Russia to obey the principle of economic liberalism and free trade.
The threat of Western sanctions had so far no real constraints on Russia’s action. Russia is such as to hold its position on Crimea so far to influence politics in and around central and western Ukraine. There is a lesser chance of full scale war in the modern day, but there is the worst chance of lucrative war between Russia and EU in future. Russia holds oil energy capacity and Ukraine holds transit route of oil energy to the West. Russia overtakes Crimea. In the near future; transit route can be controlled fully by Russia. In addition to it, commercial voyage in and around the Black Sea should be in complete control with Russia. If Russia deploys its troops in Crimea, there is every chance of a blockade of the transit route to Eastern Europe and this can be catapulted into a major economic crisis in the near future. The Russian economy will be at all time low, with zero percentages of growth predicted with constant hike in interest rates multiplying by zero percentages of investment could pose serious economic drain in and around the financial market of Russia. People will spend less in a catastrophic situation such as profitable war like environment and markets will find less consumer and fewer new goods will reach shopping malls. Many industries will find difficult to continue in natural environments, resulting in mass exodus of talented professionals to freelance. This tension will continue till war-tension ease. Russia will face tougher sanction in order to reverse its military position. Russian currency Ruble will be under pressure and this can give a positive impact to the oil and energy sector. West is planning to ban domestic companies of Russia in the near future to exert pressure. Domestic markets such as banks and retail sector will be affected hard due to less purchasing power of consumers. Inflation eats purchasing power of customers and they tend to save more than spending. They will not take any loans and this could influence the performance of banks and affect their profits.
Rise of mercantile commercial activities of Russia:
Ultimately government will support their market with possible favorable reforms and announcement of definite economic measures. What will this give impact to different aspects of commercial and mercantile banking is a subject that has to be seen. On the contrary, Ukraine will find the most propitious aid from the West and they will be helping wholeheartedly to Ukraine to help them out of economic and financial crisis. In the past, on numerous occasions Ukraine has been constantly advising by the West to give assurance of support on financial matters but most of the time these assurances seem to be done on some bloating papers. It can face stiff fiscal concern of all time. Eastern Europe has no indigenous energy capacity as it has to depend upon Gulf and Russia principally to cater to their need to support their energy need. They are receiving oil energy through transit route of eastern Ukraine (Crimea) and the Black Sea. Now, the entire route is overtaken by Russia as a result of accession of Crimea. Price of oil will be monitored by Russia and this is the most annoying aspect of the EU as in the past after the dissolution of the USSR. Russia is faced with constant harassment from Eastern European countries in spheres of economic and mercantile commercial activities.
The opening of Sochi Winter Olympics in Russia gives a major boost to its potential productive market share. In economic war like situations Russia is still seeing improvements in its probable devalued market situations. Though in minuscule sense, renowned antivirus company Norton offers Android and Apple mobile operating system (OS) variant for free to people worldwide, generating a sense of fear among people of all over world as if there is still chance of pursuing dangers of hacking lurking in and out of Russia. Though it might be over-hyped and over ambitious but the fear over Russia in intruding cyber spheres is imminent of sheer download of Norton mobile users all over the world. After Olympic is over, analysts find war like situation in and around Russia and this affects investment environment and this caused major thrust back to an emerging economy such as Russia. The affirmative side is emerging of Russian e-Commerce market. Its email company is a major email marketing company and it offers many email management for free and it is now been adopted by many non-Russian countries owing to the advent of Google Chrome. Russian based file-cloud hosting is offering huge cloud space for free and this allows people to leave traditional cloud such as drop box, Google drive and use Russian companies from far away from Russia. It is almost impossible to stop and forbid Russian servers in West and this can give immense benefits to Russia in this ultimate economic ban situation. Ukraine’s economy is a function of steel, mineral products and machine. It solely consists of heavy industries. The structure of exports of Ukraine’s is mostly to former Soviet countries. In the last few years share of exports of Ukraine to the EU is considerably decreasing. This also leads to massive scale resentment towards EU and that resulted in creation of “Orange Revolution”.
Ageing Ukrainian population:
Availability of labor is a major problem within Ukraine population. In the last decade, its population is surprisingly decreasing beyond comprehension. Its population is an ageing population which has minuscule labor class. This results in less productivity in industrial sectors. Cost of labor on a higher side. This enhances the price of production. Export market is very competitive and slightly higher price products can be refused by customers. With fewer exports, productivity is continually on reducing trend. It has very weak private sector, and considerably less market competition. Powers of market regulatory authority is minuscule resulting in large scale corruption in every walk of life. Corruptions eats out good companies and large multinational companies like to stay out of Ukraine market environment in order to avoid cancerous corruption dropping in and out of Ukraine market. Education among youths is on the higher side but due to lack of facility and cropping of age-old Soviet era. Intellectual minds are leaving nations creating a strong void of manual as well as intellectual class in and around Ukraine. This is showing in the less prospering of industries as this can result in continual dependence of foreign imports which can ruin the economy in the long run.
All are not harmful for Ukraine. Location of it can be a great marketing hub of the world. It is mostly the transit route through which land, air and water navigation is possible. Its proximity to major industrialized nations is a major gain and these can possibly crop up increasing revenues and other aspects of commercial investments. It has large fertile agricultural land, which can be cultivated to create a major agrarian power in this locality. Among all Soviet nations, it has a vast array of fertile lands and these can be cultivated into make the exceptional situation of a strong self-sufficient agricultural productivity. It has a huge population and a well-educated mass with lower-middle income groups. It makes a vast area rich in mineral resources coupled with areas consisting of unconventional oil and gas. It can attract large multinational companies to utilize minimalists spending powers of its lower income groups. It has fewer external exchanges due to fewer multi-national companies enters into market. Its indigenous companies are finding no takers in the international arena.
Autonomy of Crimea:
Ukraine is no longer a federal state, but Crimea holds the status of autonomy. There 100 Member of Parliament of Crimea and the executive power rests with parliament subject to approval of President of Ukraine. Economy of Crimea is primarily dependent on tourism, fishing, and hospitality industries. It does not have the authority to impose the tax. It just has to depend upon central grant to run its economy. It is permitted to call elections and hold referendum. Though the referendum should not be for the purpose of secession. Russia has eight times army personnel than Ukraine. It has twice number of reserved forces than Ukraine. Russia has 64 submarines compared to single submarines of Ukraine. 13,000 personnel strong Black Sea fleets are headquarter at Sevastapol in Crimea. Owing to large scale economic problem and squabbling diplomatic situation it has been difficult for Russia to upgrades its military capability. Many of its vessels are old and most of them are from the erstwhile Soviet era which desperately needs up gradation. Russia’s rebuttal on capturing Crimea has been criticized and supported by numerous analysts and this creates a deep sense of confusion for and against the acquisition of a foreign land. Russian is comparing this situation to a humanitarian intervention and reason for accretion is principally on security point of view. This seems to be the tendency in the world arena after unlawful exist in Kosovo, which is supported by many independent observers as perceived to be bias and vast understatement of principal justice. It is a pity to learn about such childish justifiable actions on the part of Russia as additional states could infringe restive population of Russia considering the same set of rules that is applied to acquire Crimea. Acquisition of Russia of Crimea territory is a plain breach of sovereignty.
Crimea had declared independence on 11th of March, before referendum. According to the Ukrainian constitution, referendum for plebiscite of certain regions can be made when all parts of Ukraine go on this and give the majority opinion. Referendum of Crimea is unlawful and unjustified according to the Constitution of Ukraine. Kosovo has been subjected to more than ten years of complete violence by most Yugoslavian president. To compare Kosovo with Crimea is completely unjustified according to some eminent scholars. As Kosovo desperately need humanitarian need as there is wide scale government sponsored violence to abolish a particular race from extinction. On the contrary, the situation of Crimea is not the same thing. There is no such extinction problem of masses, but people want respect and go out from the standard of secondary citizenship. It is primarily linguistic war in the grass root level. In the administrative level it is mostly, the conflict of economic and financial constraints. Depending on some analysts, there has been no massive or small level oppression among people of Crimea to create disillusionment and disenchantment among Russian-speaking Crimean population.
Aftermath of referendum of Crimea:
With every incident, there appears to be historical facts and build ups that act as a catalyst agent in reflecting positive and negative incidents. Political analysts of East exemplify the Kosovo incident for justification of Russia’s aggression over Crimea. Kosovo is the erstwhile state of Serbia and this incident took place in 2008. During that time nowhere in the world voice of opposition against this move is shouted out. Supporters always feel action for Kosovo is justified as it is a humanitarian crisis. There are still two sides to a coin. A glass can be considered as half empty for one and half occupied by others. In similar circumstances to Crimea, people of Kosovo did referendum and plebiscite on their own, though it is not permitted in the constitution of Serbia to hold a plebiscite on their own to separate from their main land. It happens without violence. Now, due to economic and financial constraints West is heating up the issue of Crimea accusation of Russia and this entire world appears to be divided on different lines. Over a strip of land, every player is playing politics. EU and US hold an emergency meeting of 28 foreign ministers. 21 officials who preside over referendum of Crimea are banned and their wealth is ceased. This move irritates many as how can EU and US consider this plebiscite as unlawful and unjustified without challenging in international court of justice.
All these moves indicate a massive power struggle among the western and eastern world over power prominence of energy circles. Among all these global conflicts among nations people in the world are forgetting what people of Crimea want and why they have opted to unite with Russia despite staying with Ukraine for over 15 years. People of Crimea felt they have been treated as “set of potatoes” by the people of Ukraine. Now, they are feeling the fresh air of freedom. Since, the inception of Crimea with Ukraine, people of Crimea are not satisfied and justified by this inclusion. There has been continuous increase of disillusionment within residents of Crimea. Regional Crimean government constitutes its own central bank for residents of Crimea. Russia is expected to aid the central bank of Crimea in building a positive economic and financial outlook.
Is Yanukovych the legitimate leader of Ukraine?
On 22 February 2014, Ukraine parliament overwhelmingly supported impeachment motion against President Yanukovych. 328 members voted overwhelmingly to impeach president. He was considered as a supporter of Russia and for this west and Ukrainian patriots desperately wants him to be drawn from office. Article 108-112 of Ukrainian Constitution states, the unwanted situation must be examined by a committee, and Constitution Court must relinquish order to initiate impeachment motion against the current president. President of Ukraine is considered as head and supreme power person. After obtaining a report from the Constitution Court, the report will send to Parliament. Parliament should have three quarters majorities to perform the process of impeachment. Sadly, during this process of parliament does not get three quarters of the majority. This proves, there is external pressure and power which want to remove democratically elected chairman of Ukraine. This means Yanukovych is still legitimate president of Ukraine, and impeachment procedures performed without adhering to the Ukrainian Constitution. According to constitutional authority of the president ceases to exist in three further occasions such as inability, ill health or death. President Yanukovych is alive and in Russia. Depending on the Ukrainian Constitution, he is still recognized president.
United Kingdom is justifying impeachment on the ground of “effective control” by President. Yanukovych vacated his post of president and the place of supreme power is not in his “effective-control”. This seems to be a childish argument of justifying unlawful and forced exit of an elected president through back door trespassing of European Union and United States. How can the constitution of the United Kingdom be applied to the constitution of Ukraine? Russia is claiming after violent dispatch of popular elected government at Kiev (Capital of Ukraine). Russia is claiming the new government is a threat to Russia and Russian speakers of Ukraine. They are showing refuge catastrophe from Crimea as a result of oppression from new fundamentalist government of Ukraine. Independent observers have negated all these charges. He said they are self-defense groups and perhaps uniforms of the Russian military have been stolen from their warehouse. All these arguments seem unjustified and do not hold any substantial base. There is no evidence of large scale exodus of refugee that can be called as catastrophe. Russia compares this party with former Germany nationalist party of Adolf Hitler.
Black clouds on black sea:
Pro-nationalist forces of Russia and Crimea support Russian incursion into Ukraine territory. During recent “brown revolution”, there are evidences of current leaders of Svoboda who are actively participating and fuelling these agitations. There are no confirmed documents that said about aiding of these revolutions from west or EU, but still there are plenty of indications to suggest that they are pretty much interested in establishing their own supporters. Ukraine is strategically important to Russia. Its border runs along a hundred miles and the Black Sea fleet of Russia is situated in Ukraine. Turkey is in southern part of Moscow and Russia wants a buffer protection through Ukraine. A potentially opposite government in Ukraine can prove to be disastrous in the front of economic and financial engagement for Russia. Historically, Russian people are closer to Ukraine as their early civilization props up near river Dnieper of Ukraine. Russian people can understand Ukranian language. Both have the same route, though Ukranian language is closer towards Polish language. Moscow became the capital of Russia in the Middle ages. Crimea has always been via the city of Moscow and Kiev. Historically, Crimea is easily accessible by water from Moscow and by road from Kiev. Former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych wrote a letter to the United Nations seeking active help from world leaders and specifically Russian military to intervene and stop “act of terror”.
What options do Western leaders have?
Western countries have so far given suppressed quotes in these developments. They have called for action and targeted financial sanctions against Russia. They hope, with all these pecuniary sanctions, Russia will be compelled to act on behalf of their own wishes. In the winter Olympics, many Western leaders have boycotted their participation there and so far there has been suppressed opinions among Western leaders. They do not want to be seen as supporting the current Ukrainian government as it has done countless unconstitutional acts for getting into power. In the past, during the Iran conflict, West has blocked Iranian institutions from entering into their market. It has no difference to fiscal health of Western, but conversely Iranian companies have incurred huge losses due to surface ban on West. US cannot do the same financial prohibition on Russia, as West has to depend heavily on Russia in oil and energy sectors. These fiscal measures can be boomerang on the west and it has to face a deep economic and financial crisis as a result of this sanction. For this, west and US could not implement strict monetary sanction against Russia. Complete ban on gas supply from Russia could impact greater disaster in Eastern European countries. Most countries are primarily dependent on direct gas pipe lines from Russia. China seems to be keeping a low profile in this conflict. In an article on Chinese government paper, it compels leaders of the West to see this crisis by including Russia’s concerns. It is clear that China wants to stay in a low profile as well as it wants to have good relationships with Ukraine. It reiterates territorial integrity of Ukraine is of paramount importance and it has to be preserved at any cost. Response of India is still awaited as it is going under fresh parliamentary election and ban on political leaders to speak anything on this issue. It is about me be interesting, perspective of a new government in this deeper Russia-Ukraine crisis.
After collapse of cold-war regime, India slowly moves away from the cloud of Russia to enter into friendly territory of US. Even in the last few years the relationships between India and Russia are not on high esteemed side.
Conclusion and recommendation:
In the light of everything that has been discussed in this write-up, we could say that response to the query that exit of Ukraine from the intimate sphere of Russia is the key cause of a dispute on that area. Shrinking of post-soviet place is the main cause of worry within administrative ranks of the Russian population. The win-lose relationships between Russia and Ukraine could possibly determine the future course of action in which the proper guidance and subjective preferences over superfluous fears need to be repeated in order to create a congenial environment within Balkan regions. West and US should look into this crisis in the perspective of Ukraine and Russia. They are so far been reading this crisis in the eye of Ukraine. Though most of them are giving passive reactions which is still maintaining status qua within different spheres of people in this collision zone. Diversify energy issues and transit routes so that in the future civil conflict will not have any significant impact on oil and energy transit routes and financial market. The EU should have implemented stringent measure against Ukraine on supply of oil and energy sources to eastern European countries. Exports of EU should offer technical advice to obscurity Russian gas supply and try to reduce unwanted gas reductions. Security is measure concern in the Balkan region. EU along with Russia should introduce the joint peace keeping forces and cooperative security measures to preserve this area from external aggression. Now, it is very difficult for the EU to have strong bilateral talks with Russia and post-soviet countries which are mostly united with Russia.
Brussels (Headquarter of EU) sees popular agitations and revolutions are means to augment democracy. Nevertheless, this view is based on many contradictions. In 2004, famous “Orange Revolution” is termed as illogical and disbanded by EU.In 2014, the infamous “Brown Revolution”. They should look at India to learn how the government has not made Hindi compulsory, but introduce different language systems and options for students to have a good look at their career. Some of leaders of the current government have roots to fascist ideology which can eat out all democratic minded people inside Ukraine. EU should build trust within ranks of the Russian administration to build these ambience structures within basic sphere of Russian administrative units.
Advent of English languages to the curriculum of Russian and Ukrainian students should do in order to expand the scope of students to join foreign universities and courses. Prestigious Moscow University can provide added convenience to “socially responsible elite students”, and expose them to international affairs and make them perfect ambassador of peace and stability. European Union should act as passive peace maker and should establish an environment of peace and stability all over Balkan and Eastern Europe region. Russia should understand great power and super power do not come with battle ships, increasing number of army units and other forms of military excellence. Great power comes with a stable economic and financial environment coupled with stronger GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and a vibrant and well educated socially responsible elites. Proud history of Russia suggests it has outstanding humanitarian institutions which have devoted maximum time in creating and shaping basic standards of people.
The political parties have started nominating their candidates for various parliamentary seats across the country. As usual they are not able to break out of their two compulsions. One of giving tickets to persons against whom there are charges of corruption and the second is giving it to their wives, sons, daughters and other close relatives. All parties except perhaps the Communists are guilty of these vices which have corroded the political system of our country since decades now.
Even BJP claiming to be a party with a difference has started giving tickets to relatives. Take the recent example of a party in Bihar which has now aligned with the BJP. It has given tickets to the President, his brother and son out of the six seats it will be fighting elections from. Relatives quota is 50%. Another party in Bihar has the wife and daughter in the fray and the father can't contest because he is convicted. And now comes the news that a former BJP central finance minister's son has been given the ticket. The tally is six so far.
The BJP President's son is the general secretary of the party in UP. Also the son of the former CM Kalyan Singh is the party's vice president and has already fought and lost one assembly election. Similar was the fate of another vice president, a son of the BJP MP from Lucknow. Former BJP state president's son was given Lok Sabha ticket in 2009 but he lost. The list goes on.
The Samajwadi Party has broken all dynasty records. It was allegedly reported on a TV channel recently that around 65 members of the family in control of the party were in power one way or the other in UP. The father wants to be PM in Delhi with the son as CM in Lucknow. What Luck!.
In Punjab it is the father, son and daughter-in-law who rule the roost. In J&K it started with the grandfather, father and now the son along with other close relatives enjoying all the powers in the State. In Tamil Nadu it is the ninety-year patriarch along with his sons, daughters and nephews who call the shots once every ten years and latch on to the winning coalition in Delhi to further their interests. In Karnataka it is the father (in and out of BJP), sons and son-in-law who rule their party. Andhra Pradesh has a galaxy of political families, prominent being the party started by the cine star and the one left behind by the CM who met with a tragic death.
Maharashtra also has its share of political families. The patriarch of Mumbai had inducted his son and grandson into politics and the estranged nephew has his own set up. The could-have-been PM has his daughter and nephew deeply rooted in his party and politics. In MP the Singhs, Chouhans and Scindias are among the prominent political families.
However it is little Haryana which has thrown up a large number of dynasties starting with Chaudhry Charan Singh to Devi Lal, Bansi Lal, Bhajan Singh and the present in-power Hooda clan.
However it is the Nehru-Gandhi family which is in focus. Starting with Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vijayalaxmi Pandit, Indira Gandhi, Arun Nehru, Sanjay Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi,Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Maneka Gandhi, Varun Gandhi and a few other cousins etc. It has become the premier political dynasty of the country. They have held the highest posts and shaped the country in a big way.
The above are the political families which are in focus. There are many more families in the states who are very active in politics both in power and in opposition. India has now got politically divided into regions controlled by political dynasties. Is it a good phenomenon ? Surely not but it seems to be growing election by election.
In a study conducted in 2010-11 it was found out that nearly 30% of the MP's were from political families. Those MP's who were less than 30 years of age were 100% from political families, and more than 66% of MP's below 40 years of age were from political families. Another interesting find was that the average age of MP's from political families was 48 years and it was 58 years for others. Thus there is a huge advantage in belonging to a political family. Tickets are easily available at very young ages and the political innings is also longer.
In States it was found that all MP's of RLD in Bihar were from political families. Out of nine NCP MP's seven were from such families as were 2 out of three in J&K. Similarly six out of fourteen MP's in Orissa are from hereditary families in politics. Same is the story from other Indian States.
The dynasty culture is prevalent across the border in Pakistan also led by the Bhutto and Nawaz families. In Sri Lanka and Bangladesh also there are political dynasties either ruling or in opposition. In USA there are the Kennedy's, Bushs and Clintons. In Africa and Latin America also there are large number of political dynasties.
However the issue is, do political families have a place in democracy? Yes, would be the Indian experience and answer. The increasing hereditary nature of our politicians suggests that their commitment to democracy is only skin deep. Shamelessly they further their wives, sons, daughters and other relatives into topmost positions in their parties. In the process they run the parties as their personally owned companies. Till some years ago it was comical to see and hear them defend their relatives participation but now it has become pathological and obsessive compulsion for them to induct their entire families. It is a worrisome development in Indian politics. They are so blinded by love of their sons and daughters that they simply kick their colleagues of long standing and who helped them develop roots in politics out of the party. It is disgraceful.
One of the essence of democracy is the right to dissent. This is simply not possible in family-run political parties. The second casualty is transparency as decisions are highly centralized in the hands of the party supremo. Soon these parties turn into business enterprises. Non-family members are given seats on an auction basis. The party coffers have to be continuously filled with funds by those members who get ministerial berths. The political party's whim and style becomes the will of the people instead of the other way round. Merit is not recognized in these parties. Corruption is seen as a right and new ways of indulging in it are encouraged.
What is interesting is that the prime ministerial hopeful of a national party from every forum derides the scion of the first family of Indian politics but has no qualms in joining hands with family run political parties to fulfill his ambition. His party is also now giving seats to its political leaders kith and kin. So much for political integrity.
It is high time that a rule should be brought that no person can hold a political position for more than two terms. A person cannot be elected to legislatures only for three terms. Politics should not be allowed to become a vocation but a means of an opportunity to serve the nation in a skill contributory manner. Limiting to two terms and three terms will enable more persons with multiple backgrounds and leadership skills to get turn to lead the country in various areas rather then see the same corrupt and lackluster type of low level politics emerging from political dynasties.
India is paying a huge price by Indians supporting political families by electing their kith and kin to power. Our wealth is getting concentrated in few hands instead of going for developmental activities. Leadership is also stagnated and narrow minded. Their whole purpose is to ensure not the country's progress but their political survival for generations. They are therefore ever ready to compromise.
Let us hope Indians vote out the political family candidates. Democracy and political dynasties cannot and should not be allowed to coexist. They are mutually exclusive in the long run. We must preserve our democracy if we are to become a strong nation and not create a few strong families. The initiative lies in the minds of the Indian voters.
When we think of politics the first thing that strikes us all is the word 'corruption'. 'Politicians are corrupt', 'Politics is a swamp' are the popular phrases we come across. But we have never felt the need to understand as to how this 'corruption' took to roots in a country that serves an example to the world in every arena. Corruption has spewed venom in all our lives in some way or the other. But has this menace grown in extent which is beyond our control?
The basic building block of corruption is 'The common Man'. Yes! Its we the common man and we are the ones who suffer at the hands of corruption.We are brought up in an environment where we have learned to satisfy our basic needs and we take appropriate steps to do that. But the common man doesn't realize when those appropriate steps become inappropriate and we give rise to corruption. The same common man will not stay back to take an advantage over others if given a chance. These advantages over others gradually turn into our needs and so grows our greed.
The corrupt Politicians understand our needs and our practices to achieve them and so they manage to sustain. Regional politics is an example of the same where we understand how we can be advantageous over others by choosing our regional leader. Politicians gamble around with our necessities and our problems and who suffers in the end is the 'Common Man'.
We have only learned to applaud for a new hero that comes up against corruption or let the wind flow the way it is. The common man is responsible for the way he is manhandled by the politicians as after all it is us who elect them for our personal benefits and to satisfy our personal needs. This common man doesn't have the power to take a right decision and choose the right candidate and so he suffers.
The time has come for the common man to wake up and rise. We cannot expect a superhero to come our way win over this menace. We have to make a move and understand what our needs really are. If one of them wakes up he has to alarm others and make them rise. If you cannot take a step, help those take a step who already have decided to rise against this growing problem. Let the world again know that to an Indian, it is always the nation first.
More Articles …
Page 9 of 36