US Berkeley group targets India for armed conflict. PM should tell Obama: rein-in the perpetrators of sedition from American soil.

See 
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2014/03/american-university-prepares-for-riots.html
and 
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2014/03/peoples-rights-provocateurs-and-armed.html

The time will come when America can dictate to India, and expect to be obeyed

'A plausible American tactic,' Rajeev Srinivasan suspects, 'would be to try and prevent the BJP and Modi from coming to power by splitting the anti-Congress vote using the AAP, and in case that fails, to follow up with a Plan B to make India ungovernable, to create mass conflict through their agents.'

If you scan the news these days the world seems to be a tinderbox, waiting for just a small spark to set off a conflagaration. The much-commented-on, eerie, similarities with 1914 that people have noticed concentrated on the rise of China as a revanchist power bent on changing the status quo, much as a rising Germany was a century ago. But there are other risks in a globalised world. I wonder what the catalytic action might be that actually sets off a cataclysm, just as the assassination of the Archduke of Austria-Hungary set off World War I.

In addition to the quasi-revolution in the Ukraine, here are several other countries embroiled in, or at risk of civil war, or caught up in covert or overt violence:

Syria, where an actual civil war is going on with horrific human rights violations on either side.

Thailand, where the government and the opposition seem to have fought each other to a stalemate.

Venezuela, on the verge of a civil war over discredited Chavismo and corruption.

South Sudan, the newly created country already heading towards State failure.

Afghanistan, the perennial problem child, on the precipice of partition.

Egypt, with simmering dissent and a polarised populace.

And I am only covering a subset of the world's problems. Interestingly, with the singular exception of the Ukraine, none of these problem States is in the West's heartlands; they are at best peripheral to the concerns of the rich world. This is not to say that there has been no violence in the heart of the West: The brutality in Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, etc. took place not so long ago.

Nevertheless, these strife-torn countries are a perfect excuse for breast-beating and moralising by the West, as is being demonstrated by the hand-wringing over the so-called Arab Spring. Or, for that matter, as was shown in the Scandinavian efforts in Sri Lanka's civil war. Conveniently, the West can formulate an updated version of the 'White Man's Burden' and give full vent to their bleeding-heart, knee-jerk liberal impulses. All, handily, at someone else's cost.

As annoying as European interference may be, it is worse when the Americans jump in to solve the world's problems. Americans have a self-image (partially true) of being innocents abroad, trying merely to bring order and democracy and hygiene to various benighted parts of the world.

Unfortunately, they often end up, like big, awkward children, breaking the very countries they are trying to fix (oops!), as in the case of Vietnam. Americans rushed in to 'fix' this French colony which the French wisely retreated from. Or Cambodia, which was collateral damage due to the American obsession with the Domino Theory.

Thus, it is a matter of great concern when Americans want to fix India. Much of the time, India is peripheral to the US foreign policy establishment, except when they are annoyed with it (as in the Nixon-Kissinger days) or they are trying to sell some snake oil to it (as in the much-ballyhooed case of the 'nuclear deal', which was, to digress for a minute, a selling out of India's national security in exchange for virtually nothing).

In fact, India does much better when it is not on the radar of America's self-styled do-gooders.

Therefore, it is alarming that a group at the University of California, Berkeley's business school is toiling on a project to 'create a policy and protocol framework for protecting people's rights in situations of internal armed conflict and mass violence' in India.

Which is amazing, considering that there is less violence and conflict in India than in any of the countries mentioned above, and that, anyway, there has been low-level insurgencies in India for decades.

This leads me to wonder, does the Berkeley group know something that the rest of us don't?

The context, of course, is that there have been persistent rumours that the US has 'assets' high in the Indian government. The long-sustained (but just-lifted) boycott of Narendra Modi (allegedly because a group of leftists and Muslims in the US were upset) is another indication that the US does have an interest in the 2014 Indian election: They do have a dog in this fight.

There is also the surprising and widespread white noise in support of the Aam Aadmi Party by such establishment stalwarts as The New York Times and The Economist, among others. It is hard, prima facie, to believe the Americans would genuinely embrace a self-proclaimed anarchist group with far-Left views on almost everything. Nevertheless, there they are, with their front foundations merrily giving away all sorts of awards and money to the AAP.

This fits in with an observed tactic on the part of the West to encourage leftist, nihilist dissident groups in other countries. It is rather evident by now that a Narendra Modi-led government would not be particularly easy to bribe or manipulate -- it does appear that he neither forgives nor forgets -- and that it would be, as with Shinzo Abe's administration in Japan, prone to care about the national interest, not America's.

This, of course, is anathema to the American world view based on George Kennan's Cold War views on hegemony.

Thus, as a first approximation, a plausible American tactic would be to try and prevent the Bharatiya Janata Party and Modi from coming to power by splitting the anti-Congress vote using the AAP, and in case that fails, to follow up with a Plan B to make India ungovernable, to create mass conflict through their agents.

This is not theoretical: Almost exactly the same tactic was followed in Kerala in 1959. It is widely believed that the duly elected Communist government of E M S Namboodiripad was overthrown by the CIA and friends making the place essentially ungovernable.

Therefore, there is the fear that the Americans have every intent to meddle in a post-Congress scenario by creating chaos. Of course, if that too fails, they have a Plan C, which I doubt if I need to spell out. But we shall let that pass for the moment.

The concern about the Berkeley group is magnified if you look at their Web site. Grandly claiming that an aim of this 'Armed Conflict Resolution and People's Rights Project' is to 'engage with affected communities, and periodically engage with members of the Government of India,' it identifies J&K, Manipur, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, and specifically Gujarat and Odisha as having been 'impacted by far-reaching violence on minority communities in recent history.'

In other words, the usual anti-Modi rhetoric about the Gujarat riots in 2002, with a few other topics thrown in for the sake of camouflage. Old wine in new bottles.

The impression that there is more to this group, attached to the Haas School of Business at Berkeley, than meets the eye, is strengthened by a perusal of the list of principals. One is a notable purveyor of anti-India ideas, who was implicated in the Faigate scandal as an unregistered lobbyist for Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence. Another is now out on bail on charges of embezzling funds from victims of violence. Another is attached to the Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, which deals with nuclear weapons!

Many of the others are old war-horses from the FOIL (Forum of Indian Leftists which transmogrified one fine day into the Forum of Inquilabi Leftists), a group that is reflexively and viscerally opposed to many things in India, especially to right-leaning Hindus.

There are enough people with a known history of antipathy to Modi in this group to strengthen the impression that this whole thing is another exercise for Modi's benefit.

What is particularly sinister is that there is circumstantial evidence that seems to indicate that people like FOIL have, in the past, 'known' about certain events before they happened. Which, by Occam's Razor, would suggest that these events were not random, but were planned, and that the leftists were in the know.

Are they planning to just study conflict, or is there more?

Furthermore, if the objective is to study conflict, why does the focus lie entirely on India, with almost all the members of the working group being of Indian origin?

As I pointed out above, there is actual armed conflict in many other places right now, so why India alone?

The implication is that this group may well be witting or unwitting participants in a conspiracy to create violence in India.

There is an implicit American project going on regarding India anyway: Many American maps show the entire North-East detached from India, in addition to all of Jammu and Kashmir. There has been much pressure on India to give away the Siachen Glacier to Pakistan.

And given the fact that India has now become the biggest buyer of American arms, the time will come when America can dictate to an Indian government, and expect to be obeyed.

It looks as though the Berkeley group may be planning to add internal pressure as well to the mix to discomfit an Indian government. This is a matter of serious concern, and it is not too far-fetched to consider this a conspiracy to overthrow a future Indian government. In my book, that would be considered seditious, and it should be treated accordingly.

Image: US President Barack Obama with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Photograph: Press Information Bureau.

Phew by crusader (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 05:49 PM Mr Beans conspiracy theory!     Forward  |  Report abuse An Excuse by Jobby Pynadath (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 05:43 PM Is this a preemptive effort to explain away MODI's failure to win national elections as and when it happens.     Forward  |  Report abuse Voters by MM (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 05:41 PM If Voters are fools and selfish, why America, even our neighbors can decide who should win elections in India. Mahesh     Forward  |  Report abuse Voters by MM (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 05:39 PM If Voters are fools, why America, even our neighbors can decide who should win elections in India. Mahesh     Forward  |  Report abuse Voters by MM (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 05:39 PM If Voters are fools, why America, even our neighbors can decide who should win elections in India. Mahesh     Forward  |  Report abuse USA by Anand (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 05:37 PM If we want to put USA on the back foot, we need a leader who can show USA its place and Modi has done just that. He made sure that USA would come to meet him and not the other way round. Rahul is soft and can be easily manipulated by USA as per its needs but they can't manipulate Modi. Let's leave behind ideological and other differences and vote for BJP and save the country from the clutches of USA. Let's remember that we are Indians first and security of the country is very important.We wouldn't want to be ruled by a foreign country again and fight for freedom again.     Forward  |  Report abuse Trying to change mole into mountain by Darvin Chaudhary (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 05:36 PM I think, writer is too suspicious about other intention. Every country see their benefit. They should do what well suited for them. US tried to involve India into Afganistan War. But, India clearly declined. Same happen in Sri Lanka, where India provide other support. But, decline when comes to artilary or ammunition. India concentrating more on Africa and Asia then US/Europe as their Trade Partner. India should concentrate more on trade and peaceful mission. With time, India will catch pace with these countries.     Forward  |  Report abuse If CIA decides to get AAP on floor by Sheikh Akber (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 05:36 PM  | Hide replies no one can dare to defeat them, this author is just an diehard bjpee supporter and nothing else, this book is to influence voters..     Forward  |  Report abuse Re: If CIA decides to get AAP on floor by rony (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 06:02 PM AAP should disclose their source of funds for the last election. So far they have not submitted to govt. why?    Forward   |   Report abuse A by SAMEERA (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 05:35 PM America must stop acting as international policemen.India,China and Russia are the superpowers for 21st century.America is nothing.     Forward  |  Report abuse

Trying very hard.... by Raj (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 05:21 PM tinderbox, conflagaration, revanchist, cataclysm, populace, anathema.... Really?? It's clear that the author, Rajeev Srinivasan, is trying very, very hard to impress. What's the need for such big words when writing for a website such as Rediff? Does the author not know his audience, or is he brimming with estrogen? People like Rajeev Srinivasan need to get a life. Go ahead and read the reports of top journalists worldwide (BBC, WSJ, etc.)...they're devoid of fancy language and the journalist isn't trying to score...just doing what he's supposed to do - inform.     Forward  |  Report abuse American by Ravi (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 04:52 PM  | Hide replies American wants the world to follow them for that they use hook and crook policies in which most of the countries fell and in that there is possibility of trapping India too but this might not be successful as American don't know soul of India and its thousand year of culture.     Forward  |  Report abuse Re: American by arvin g (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 05:05 PM but americans know slave mentality and stupidity of indians... thats why they use their stooges like kejriwal to brainwash and control indians...    Forward   |   Report abuse Re: Re: American by Rashmi (View MyPage) on Mar 03, 2014 05:40 PM Also look at the AAP team. Almost all are running their own NGOs. As reported by the CBI recently there are more than 20 lac NGOs operating in India at the moment and have received nearly 3000 Cr as funding between 2010 and 2011. So now you see what is cooking with AAP at its center.    Forward   |   Report abuse

Annex

Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, that no State has the right to intervent directly or indirectly for any reason whatsoever in the internal or external affairs of any other State,

Reaffirming further the fundamental principle of the Charter of the United Nations that all States have the duty not to threaten or use force against the sovereignty, political independence or territorial integrity of other States,

Bearing in mind that the establishment, maintenance and strengthening of international peace and security are founded upon freedom, equality, self-determination and independence, respect for the sovereignty of States, as well as permanent sovereignty of States over their natural resources, irrespective of their political, economic or social systems or the levels of their development,

Considering that full observance of the principle of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal and external affairs of States is of the greatest importance for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Reaffirming in accordance with the Charter the right to self-determination and independence of people under colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes,

Stressing that the purposes of the United Nations can be achieved only under conditions where peoples enjoy freedom and States enjoy sovereign equality and comply fully with the requirements of these principles in their international relations,

Considering that any violation of the principle of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal and external affairs of States poses a threat to the freedom of peoples, the sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity of States to their political, economic, social and cultural development, and also endangers international peace and security,

Considering that a declaration on the inadmissibility of intervention and interference in the internal affairs of States will contribute towards the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Considering the provisions of the Charter as a whole and taking into account the resolutions adopted by the United Nations relating to the contents of this principle, in particular those containing the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security, the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Definition of Aggression,

Solemnly declares that:

1.No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of other States.

2.The principle of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal and external affairs of States comprehends the following rights and duties:

I

1. Sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity, national unity and security of all States, as well as national indentity and cultural heritage of their peoples;
2. The sovereign and inalienable right of a State freely to determine its own political, economic, cultural and social system, to develop its international relations and to exercise permanent sovereignty over its natural resources, in accordance with the will of its people, without outside intervention, interference, subversion, coercion or threat in any form whatsoever;
3. The right of States and peoples to have free access to information and to develop fully, without interference, their system of information and mass media and to use their information media in order to promote their political, social, economic and cultural interests and aspirations, based, inter alia, on the relevant articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of the new international information order;

II

1. The duty of States to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any form whatsoever to violate the existing internationally recognized boundaries of another State, to disrupt the political, social or economic order of other States, to overthrow or change the political system of another State or its Government, to cause tension between or among States or to deprive peoples of their national identity and cultural heritage;
2. The duty of a State to ensure that its territory is not used in any manner which would violate the sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity and national unity or disrupt the political, economic and social stability of another State; this obligaion applies also to States entrusted with responsibility for territories yet to attain self-determination and national independence;
3. The duty of a State to refrain from armed intervention, subversion, military occupation or any other form of intervention and interference, overt or covert, directed at another State or group of States, or any act of military, political or economic interference in the internal affairs of another State, including acts of reprisal involving the use of force;
4. The duty of a State to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples under colonial domination or foreign occupation of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence;
5. The duty of a State to refrain from any action or attempt in whatever form or under whatever pretext to destabilize or to undermine the stability of another State or of any of its institutions;
6. The duty of a State to refrain from the promotion, encouragement or support, direct or indirect, of rebellious or secessionist activities within other States, under any pretext whatsoever, or any action which seeks to disrupt the unity or to undermine or subvert the political order of other States;
7. The duty of a State to prevent on its territory the training, financing and recruitment of mercenaries, or the sending of such mercenaries into the territory of another State and to deny facilities, including financing, for the equipping and transit of mercenaries;
8. The duty of a State to refrain from concluding agreements with other States designed to intervene or interfere in the internal and external affairs of third States;
9. The duty of States to refrain from any measure which would lead to the strengthening of existing military blocs or the creation or strengthening of new military alliances, interlocking arrangements, the deployment of interventionist forces or military bases and other related military installations conceived in the context of great-Power confrontation;
10. The duty of a State to abstain from any defamatory campaign, villification or hostile propaganda for the purpose of intervening or interfering in the internal affairs of other States;
11. The duty of a State, in the conduct of its international relations in the economic, social, technical and trade fields, to refrain from measures which would constitute interference or intervention in the internal or external affairs of another State, thus preventing it from determining freely its political, economic and social development; this includes, inter alia, the duty of a State not to use its external economic assistance programme or adopt any multilateral or unilateral economic reprisal or blockade and to prevent the use of transnational and multinational corporations under its jurisdiction and control as instruments of political pressure or coercion against another State, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations;
12. The duty of a State to refrain from the exploitation and the distortion of human rights issues as a means of interference in the internal affairs of States, of exerting pressure on other States or creating distrust and disorder within and among States or groups of States;
13. The duty of a State to refrain from using terrorist practices as state policy against another State or against peoples under colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes and to prevent any assistance to or use of or tolerance of terrorist groups, saboteurs or subversive agents against third States;
14. The duty of a State to refrain from organizing, training, financing and arming political and ethnic groups on their territories or the territories of other States for the purpose of creating subversion, disorder or unrest in other countries;
15. The duty of a State to refrain from any economic, political or military activity in the territory of another State without its consent;

III

1. The right of States to participate actively on the basis of equality in solving outstanding international issues, thus contributing to the removal of causes of conflicts and interference;
2. The right and duty of States fully to support the right to self-determination, freedom and independence of peoples under colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes, as well as the right of these peoples to wage both political and armed struggle to that end, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
3. The right and duty of States to observe, promote and defend all human rights and fundamental freedoms within their own national territories and to work or the elimination of massive and flagrant violations of the rights of nations and peoples, and in particular, for the elimination of apartheid and all forms of racism and racial discrimination;
4. The right and duty of States to combat, within their constitutional prerogatives, the dissemination of false or distorted news which can be interpreted as interference in the internal affairs of other States or as being harmful to the promotion of peace, co-operation and friendly relations among States and nations;
5. The right and duty of States not to recognize situations brought about by the threat or use of force or acts undertaken in contravention of the principle of non-intervention and non-interference.

3.The right and duties set out in this Declaration are interrelated and are in accordance with theCharter of the United Nations.

4.Nothing in this Declaration shall prejudice in any manner the right to self-determination, freedom and independence of peoples under colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes, and the right to seek and receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

5.Nothing in this Declaration shall prejudice in any manner the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

6.Nothing in this Declaration shall prejudice action taken by the United Nations under Chapters VI and VII of the Charter of the United Nations.