THE WAY WE FOUGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS  

   A decade and seven years ago, six Sikkimese representing the three ethnic communities of Sikkim – Lepchas, Bhutias and Nepalese – held a 12-hour hunger strike in Gangtok on October 2, 1999, demanding restoration of their political rights on seat reservation in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly.

(Left to Right) Tenzing Namgyal, Jigme N. Kazi, Nima Lepcha, Pintso Bhutia, K.C. Pradhan and Gyamsay Bhutia.

   The participants were:  the Late K.C. Pradhan, former Minister and Advisor of the Sikkimese Nepalese Apex Committee (SNAC), Nima Lepcha and Pintso Bhutia, Convenors of the Sikkim Bhutia-Lepcha Apex Committee (SIBLAC), Jigme N. Kazi, Chairman of the Organisation of Sikkimese Unity (OSU), and Tenzing Namgyal and Gyamsay Bhutia of the SIBLAC.

   The protestors “sought the blessing of the ‘Father of the Nation’ and the Guardian Deities of Sikkim in their struggle on restoration of their political rights” as reflected in Article 371F of the Constitution of India.

   “We held the hunger strike on October 2 to remind the world that we were determined to struggle on till our demand on restoration of our political rights were met. While others fought the elections we fought for our people. We are not concerned with who wins or loses in the polls; our main concern was that if the Assembly seats were not restored to us in the near future we would be the ultimate losers and the electoral process would then become a meaningless ritual as the Sikkimese people would have no future to look forward to.”

Ref: The Lone Warrior: Exiled In My Homeland, by Jigme N. Kazi, published by Hill Media Publications, Gangtok, 2014. 

After surgical strike, China 'hopes' India, Pakistan can resolve issues through dialogue

By IANS , Sept 29, 2016

BEIJING: Following India's claim that it launched "surgical strikes" on the terrorist launch pads in Pakistani Kashmir on Thursday, China has said that Beijing was in touch with both New Delhi and Islamabad through "various channels".

Responding to a question during the daily briefing, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson here said: "We hope that they (India and Pakistan) can carry out dialogues to properly resolve disputes and maintain regional peace and security."

The statement comes after tensions between Pakistan and India escalated after India announced that it has carried out surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads across the Line of Control, which divides Jammu and Kashmir between the two countries.

Pakistan has dismissed Indian claims that it carried out any strike on terrorist launch pads on territory under its control.

The spokesman added that China was a friendly neighbour to both Pakistan and India.

Asked about the Kashmir issue, the spokesperson said: "China has been following the Kashmir situation and takes seriously Pakistan's position on Kashmir."

"China believes that the Kashmir issue is a left-over from history which shall be resolved by relevant parties through dialogue and consultation." (The New Indian Express)

Column

The next president unbound by the 'Obama overreach'

By Victor Davis Hanson

Donald Trump’s supporters see a potential Hillary Clinton victory in November as the end of any conservative chance to restore small government, constitutional protections, fiscal sanity and personal liberty.

Clinton’s progressives swear that a Trump victory would spell the implosion of America as they know it, alleging Trump parallels with every dictator from Josef Stalin to Adolf Hitler.

Part of the frenzy over 2016 as a make-or-break election is because a closely divided Senate’s future may hinge on the coattails of the presidential winner. An aging U.S. Supreme Court may also translate into perhaps three to four court picks for the next president.

Yet such considerations only partly explain the current election frenzy.

The model of the imperial Obama presidency is the greater fear. Over the last eight years, President Barack Obama has transformed the powers of presidency in a way not seen in decades.

Congress talks grandly of “comprehensive immigration reform,” but Obama, as he promised with his pen and phone, bypassed the House and Senate to virtually open the border with Mexico. He issued executive-order amnesties. He allowed entire cities to be exempt from federal immigration law.

Perils of presidential power

The Senate used to ratify treaties. In the past, a president could not unilaterally approve the Treaty of Versailles, enroll the United States in the League of Nations, fight in Vietnam or Iraq without congressional authorization, change existing laws by non-enforcement, or rewrite bankruptcy laws.

Not now. Obama set a precedent that he did not need Senate ratification to make a landmark treaty with Iran on nuclear enrichment.

He picked and chose which elements of the Affordable Care Act would be enforced — predicated on his 2012 re-election efforts.

Rebuffed by Congress, Obama is now slowly shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention center by insidiously having inmates sent to other countries.

Respective opponents of both Trump and Clinton should be worried.

Either winner could follow the precedent of allowing any sanctuary city or state in the United States to be immune from any federal law found displeasing — from the liberal Endangered Species Act and federal gun registration laws to conservative abortion restrictions.

Could anyone complain if Trump’s secretary of state were investigated by Trump’s attorney general for lying about a private email server — in the manner of Clinton being investigated by Loretta Lynch?

Would anyone object should a President Trump agree to a treaty with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the same way Obama overrode Congress with the Iran deal?

If a President Clinton decides to strike North Korea, would she really need congressional authorization, considering Obama’s unauthorized Libyan bombing mission?

What would Americans say if President Trump’s IRS — mirror-imaging Lois Lerner — hounded the progressive nonprofit organizations of George Soros?

Partisans are shocked that the press does not go after Trump’s various inconsistencies and fibs about his supposed initial opposition to the Iraq War, or press him on the details of Trump University.

Conservatives counter that Clinton has never had to come clean about the likely illegal pay-for-play influence peddling of the Clinton Foundation or her serial lies about her private email server.

But why, if elected, should either worry much about media scrutiny?

Obama established the precedent that a president should be given a pass on lying to the American people. Did Americans, as Obama repeatedly promised, really get to keep their doctors and health plans while enjoying lower premiums and deductibles, as the country saved billions through his Affordable Care Act?

More recently, did Obama mean to tell a lie when he swore that he sent cash to the Iranians only because he could not wire them the money — when in truth the administration had wired money to Iran in the past? Was cash to Iran really not a ransom for American hostages, as the president asserted?

Can the next president, like Obama, double the national debt and claim to be a deficit hawk?

Congress has proven woefully inept at asserting its constitutional right to check and balance Obama’s executive overreach. The courts have often abdicated their own oversight.

But the press is the most blameworthy. White House press conferences now resemble those in the Kremlin, with journalists tossing Putin softball questions about his latest fishing or hunting trip.

One reason Americans are scared about the next president is that they should be.

In 2017, a President Trump or President Clinton will be able to do almost anything he or she wishes without much oversight — thanks to the precedent of Obama’s overreach, abetted by a lapdog press that forgot that the ends never justify the means. (Chicago Tribune)

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of “The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern.”

China is India's primary security challenge: UK think-tank

29 September 2016                                                                                         

India's relations with Pakistan and Nepal have deteriorated in the past year but China remains the country's ''primary security challenge'', according to an annual strategic survey by an influential London-based think-tank released on Tuesday.

The Strategic Survey 2016: The Annual Review of World Affairs of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) reviewed India's troubled relationship with Pakistan and referred to the intensive ''retaliatory'' firing across the Line of Control under the Modi government, fluctuations in the dialogue process, the Ufa summit and the terror attack on the Pathankot airbase.

''India's major security threat remained the terrorism emanating from Pakistan, on which (Prime Minister Narendra) Modi took a tougher position than his predecessor,'' it said, but identified China as India's ''primary security challenge''.

The survey said the challenge from China was because of its assertiveness on the border dispute with India, exacerbated by Beijing's growing trade and defence partnerships with New Delhi's South Asian neighbours and by an expansion of Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean.

''For policymakers in New Delhi, this created fears of encirclement and hardened their attitude towards Beijing, even as China continued to be India's largest trading partner, and Modi sought to establish stronger trade and investment links with Beijing,'' it said.

Referring to shifts in Pakistan's policies, the survey said, ''As ever, the main driver of Pakistan's security policy was its rivalry with India. This consideration trumped all other factors.''

Rahul Roy-Choudhury, IISS senior fellow for South Asia, told The Hindustan Times, ''Instead of any 'knee-jerk' military-focussed reaction that will at best be symbolic rather than substantive, India needs a calibrated and sustained multifaceted approach towards Pakistan.

 ''This could seek to target Pakistan-based terrorist groups, effectively operationalise counter-terror cooperation with India's strategic partners in the Gulf region and the West, and highlight India's emerging economic and global influence with the international community.''

Roy-Choudhary, who contributed to the survey, said India also ''needs to ensure that its main constituent in Pakistan - the people - is suitably empowered through the democratic process''.

The survey further said that India's ''neighbourhood first'' policy has paid few dividends beyond Bangladesh and Bhutan.

''This was due to the complex domestic politics of countries in the region, their historical suspicion of India as the dominant regional power, the influence of India domestic and ethnic politics, and increasing Chinese engagement with the region,'' it said.

''Equally important was the failure to meet expectations generated by Modi's initial outreach to other leaders in the SAARC, after he invited them to his May 2014 inauguration ceremony.''

At the global level, the survey said, institutions and norms that dampen the risk of conflict are under assault from populism in developed states and the assertive behaviour of rising and reviving powers.

IISS director general John Chapman said, ''The underpinnings of geopolitics have splintered so much in the past year that the foundations of global order appear alarmingly weak. The politics of parochialism now mix with the instincts of nationalism, and both clash with the cosmopolitan world order so carefully constructed by the technocrats of the late 20th century.'' (domain-b.com)

INSIDE SIKKIM

My first book, 'Inside Sikkim: Against the Tide' was released by former Indian External Affairs Minister, K. Natwar Singh, at the Press Club of India, New Delhi, on December 28, 1993. Later it was launched in Gangtok in early February 1994 by Chief Minister Pawan Chamling, who was then leading a pro-democracy movement in Sikkim.

LAST & FINAL CALL TO PRESERVE

‘SIKKIM FOR SIKKIMESE’ WITHIN THE UNION

   As the Sikkimese society further disintegrates into tiny pieces, leaving us with an unknown, insecure and unchartered future we must realise that the time has come for all of us who are deeply concerned about our future in the land of our origin to take a serious look at what is happening and where we are heading.

   Even as the decades-long demand on restoration of our political rights through Assembly seat reservation is yet to be fulfilled our identity as ‘Sikkimese’ is under constant attack and undergoing severe test even as our so-called leaders are scrambling for power using the Assembly seat issue and Scheduled Tribes status for Nepali-Gorkha community in Sikkim.

   Significantly, Chief Minister Pawan Chamling recently rightly reminded us that the ‘Sikkimese Nepalese’ have a ‘distinct identity’ in Sikkim and urged everyone to maintain unity and harmony and not be led astray by communal elements.  Unfortunately, because of petty politics the Chief Minister’s call had few takers.

   The time has come for all of us to look beyond politics and set aside our personal and political differences and come together to preserve ‘Sikkim for Sikkimese’ for all times  to come within the Indian Union and within the Constitution of India.

   Sikkim and the Sikkimese people are at the crossroad. We cannot change the past but we can and must shape the future of our choice.  Let all bonafide Sikkimese possessing genuine Sikkim Subject Certificate be declared Scheduled Tribes in Sikkim and let Assembly seat reservation be based on ethnicity and not on ST basis. There must be a give-and-take attitude on parity/proportional representation demand in the Assembly from all sides once our identity issue is amicably resolved.

   On a personal level I reiterate my appeal to all Sikkimese – Lepchas, Bhutias, Nepalese and members of the old business community – to come together and preserve ‘Sikkim for Sikkim’ within the Union. I am willing to end my 12-year-old self-imposed exile in my own homeland and join a movement to save Sikkim and Sikkimese for our future generation if there are those who share the same sentiments and come out openly on the issue. 

    However, if there are no takers to our call let us reconcile ourselves to the present reality and accept a Sikkim without the Sikkimese and move on without fear or bitterness.

Jigme N.Kazi

Gangtok, September 2, 2016

Sorry, Obama, the System Is Rigged

Trump is right: Elections favor the rich and powerful

By Michael Sainato • 08/10/16

During a press conference last week, President Barack Obama called Donald Trump’s recent claims that the general election will be rigged, “ridiculous.” The retort is the latest attack on Trump from Obama, who has emerged as the Clintoncampaign’s spokesperson while Hillary Clinton herself makes low key campaign stops in swing states like Pennsylvania and Florida.

In January, Obama touched upon what Trump was trying to get at when he said the general election will be rigged. But to Obama, this critique is merely about Americans’ interpretations, not the facts.

“Democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter, that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest,” Obama said during his final State of the Union speech. “Too many Americans feel that way right now. It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency—that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better.”

Denigrating these suspicions as “ridiculous,” despite who said them, isn’t going to do anything but exacerbate these attitudes. And mocking Trump for connecting on one of the biggest issues he can attribute his popularity to will only increase his support.

Although Trump failed miserably to articulate what exactly he meant by “rigged,” he still touched upon an attitude with which millions of Americans widely agree. The sentiment that elections and the system that runs them is rigged has emerged as the issue with the most bipartisan support this election year. A 2015 Gallup poll found trust in the media is at a historic low. A 2015 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found trust in the government is similarly bottoming out.

The political reality and the ideals of everyday Americans are at such odds because of the influence big money has on democracy. This political polarization directlycorrelates to broadening income inequality. The growing animosity toward the political system has popularized anti-establishment sentiments across the ideological spectrum. Since the 2008 economic recession, nearly 99 percent of all new income has gone to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. Middle and working class Americans have seen their wages remain stagnant while the wealthy have grown richer.

The 2011 Citizens United Supreme Court decision opened the floodgates for wealthy donors to provide their candidates of choice with unlimited campaign contributions. The power and influence every American citizen is provided in the right to vote has been stripped of its inherent bargaining power.

Clinton has profited off of this rigged system more than any other candidate this election. She managed to raise more money than Sen. Bernie Sanders’ grassroots campaign with the use of SuperPACs, including a controversial joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which laundered money to the Clinton campaign. The Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 releases revealed that the DNC strategized and actively worked on behalf of the Clinton campaign while working against Sanders.

The Democratic National Convention was privately funded for the first time, while the donors are still hidden in anonymity by Democratic Party leaders. Despite accusations of favoritism and corruption over former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s leadership as early as September 2015 from Sanders supporters, no remedy was provided until after Clinton secured the nomination. As soon as Wasserman Schultz resigned, Clinton hired her, sending a message to establishment loyalists that they will be taken care of as long as their actions help maintain the status quo..

Trump’s presidential campaign has been fueled by the media sensationalism surrounding his uncensored mouth. The disdain and resentment for Trump within the Republican Party establishment is based less on his policies, and more on his inability to adhere to what the Republican Party establishment wants him to do. His recent drop in the polls has been driven by the mainstream media’s full court presson his campaign, while Clinton also happens to be running for president, but is rarely placed under a critical eye.

Regardless of the flaws Trump has as a presidential candidate, Clinton has received a free pass from any criticism. She has won endorsements from billionaires Warren Buffett, Mark Cuban and Michael Bloomberg while still claiming to be a fighter for the middle class. Her retort to Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” epitomizes her out-of-touch elitism that “America is already great.” For millions of Americans who live under or near the poverty line, things continue to spiral on a downward trajectory, with neither Trump or Clinton capable of doing anything but making things worse.

The idea that the elections are rigged isn’t ridiculous, as Obama claims. His attempt to dignify the allegations with a soothing response confirms that he knows the anti-establishment sentiment in the American public is worsening. Instead of admitting that there is some truth to Trump’s clunky claim, Obama felt compelled to pacify those sentiments as hysterical. But they aren’t. The elections are rigged, because the voice of the average American is silenced, and millions of voters are disenfranchised. Along with the mainstream media, the establishment in both political parties will continually fail to restore Americans’ trust in a system overtly rigged to work against them by endlessly preserving the status quo.

(Courtesy: Observer Media)