Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Armed Forces Special Powers and the present turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir
Sunday, September 19th, 2010
Shanthi Rajagopal
Reasons for the present unrest in Jammu and Kashmir
The immediate trigger for the current phase of protests was the death of 17-year-old Tufail Mattoo, who was
killed by a tear gas canister which struck his head during a protest in Srinagar in June, 2010 against the Machhil
fake encounter of April 30, 2010. Many observers have blamed his death — and the deaths of other young men
since then — on the security forces lacking the training and means for non-lethal crowd control. Tear gas,
rubber bullets and water cannon are used all over the world in situations where protests turn violent but in
India, live ammunition seems to be the first and only line of defence. Even tear gas canisters are so poorly
designed here that they lead to fatalities.
Whatever the immediate cause, however, it is also safe to say that young Tufail died as a direct result of
Machhil. Though the Army has arrested the soldiers responsible for the fake encounter, the only reason they
had the nerve to commit such a heinous crime was because they were confident they would get away with it.
And at the root of that confidence is Pathribal, the notorious fake encounter of 2000. The army officers
involved in the kidnapping and murder of five Kashmiri civilians there continue to be at liberty despite being
charge-sheeted by the CBI. The Ministry of Defence has refused to grant sanction for their prosecution and has
taken the matter all the way to the Supreme Court in an effort to ensure its men do not face trial. What was the
message that went out as a result?
Had the Centre made an example of the rotten apples that have spoiled the reputation of the Army instead of
protecting them all these years, the Machhil encounter might never have happened? Tufail would not be dead
and angry mobs would not be attacking police stations and government buildings. Impunity for the few Army
personnel has directly endangered the lives of all policemen and paramilitary personnel stationed in Kashmir.
There is a lesson in this, surely, for those who say punishing the guilty will lower the morale of the security
forces.
Criticism against AFSPA
Whatever is its logic, it is certain that the Armed Forces Special Protection Act (AFSPA) has long been
regarded a heavy-handed law, one that allows the Army overweening powers and special immunity in areas that
are deemed “disturbed”. Primarily intended for the Northeast when it was crafted in 1958, it was extended to
Jammu and Kashmir in 1990. In both cases, the Law has been central to the region’s resentments.
Though it has long been contested as disproportionate and “draconian”, the Armed Forces and Defence
Ministry have long objected to its withdrawal saying that the forces need that special cover to maintain control
in volatile areas, and that taking it away could have serious security implications. On the other hand, there is
unanimity in Kashmir that AFSPA should be relooked, given the new normal in the state, it’s clear investment
in the electoral process and then waning of violence, and there were signs that this would be heeded, even
through this new cycle of conflict in the Valley. The debate over the act continues but now, there is indication
that AFSPA may be relaxed in six districts in Jammu and Kashmir — Srinagar, Ganderbal and Budgam,
Jammu, Samba and Kathua (conveniently, NC and Congress bastions). This is not just a huge symbolic move, it
will also compel Security forces to reorient their actions in the interiors of the State and make a visible
difference in daily life.
However, now it all hinges on Chief Minister Omar Abdullah. He has received a tremendous boost, having
demonstrated the Centre’s backing on a core demand — the question is whether he can channel this newfound
political capital into keeping these regions secure. Imphal witnessed a round of extortions and separatist
trouble, after AFSPA was withdrawn, and the Chief Minister looks hapless. Omar must be careful not to
become another Ibobi, and end up proving the necessity of a harsh Act that no one really wants.
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA)
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) is supposed one of the most draconian pieces of legislation
passed by Parliament. Under the Act, all security forces are given unbridled powers to carry out their operations
once an area is declared ‘disturbed‘. Even a non-commissioned officer can shoot to kill based on the mere
suspicion that it is necessary to do so to “maintain public order”.
The people of Jammu & Kashmir have been agitating for the past three months for withdrawal of the Act. Chief
Minister of Jammu Omar, too, has stressed that AFSPA should be withdrawn from areas where it has not been
used at all.
The Indian Defence Minister, Thiru Antony, however, is believed to have told the chief minister that the army
has reservations against any amendment to or partial withdrawal of the AFSPA from the State.
The Act was imposed on Jammu & Kashmir at the height of the separatist terrorist movement. Now, as most
places in the State have reported a drop in terrorist violence, the people are demanding its withdrawal. But
others believe the State is still ’sensitive’ and withdrawing the Act will handicap the Army.
Passing of the Act
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) was passed on 11 September 1958 by the Parliament of
India. It conferred special powers upon armed forces in what the language of the act calls “disturbed areas” in
the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura.
The Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 was an Act to enable certain special
powers to be conferred upon members of the Armed Forces in the disturbed areas in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir. “Armed forces” means the Military forces and the Air forces operating as land forces and includes
any other Armed forces of the Union so operating.
Special powers of the Armed Forces
Section 4:
This section sets out the powers granted to the military stationed in a disturbed area. These powers are granted
to the commissioned officer, warrant officer, or non-commissioned officer, only a jawan (private) does not have
these powers. The Section allows the armed forces personnel to use force for a variety of reasons.
Any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any other person of equivalent rank in
the armed forces may, in a disturbed area,-
(a} if he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of public order, after giving such due
warning as he may consider necessary, fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against
any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area
prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used
as weapons or of firearms, ammunition or explosive substances;
This means the army can shoot to kill, under the powers of section 4:-
(a), for the commission or suspicion of the commission of the following offenses: acting in contravention of
any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more
persons, carrying weapons, or carrying anything which is capable of being used as a fire-arm or ammunition.
To justify the invocation of this provision, the officer must be “of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for
the maintenance of public order” and should give “such due warning as he may consider necessary”.
(b) if he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, destroy any arms dump, prepared or fortified position or
shelter from which armed attacks are made or are likely to be made or are attempted to be made, or any
structure used as training camp for armed volunteers or utilized as a hide-out by armed gangs or absconders
wanted for any offence;
This means the army can destroy property under section 4(b) if it is an arms dump, a fortified position or shelter
from where armed attacks are made or are suspected of being made, if the structure is used as a training camp
or as a hide-out by armed gangs or absconders.
(c) arrest, without warrant, any persons who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable
suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence and may use such force as
may be necessary to effect the arrest;
This means the Army can arrest anyone without a warrant under section 4(c) who has committed, is suspected
of having committed or of being about to commit, a cognizable offence and use any amount of force “necessary
to effect the arrest”.
(d) enter and search, without warrant, any premises to make any such arrest as aforesaid or to recover any
person believed to be wrongful restrained or confined or any property reasonably suspected to be stolen
property or any arms, ammunition or explosive substances believed to be unlawful kept in such premises, and
may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary, and seize any such property, arms, ammunition or
explosive substances;
Under section 4(d), the army can enter and search without a warrant to make an arrest or to recover any
property, arms, ammunition or explosives which are believed to be unlawfully kept on the premises. This
section also allows the use of force necessary for the search.
(e) stop, search and seize any vehicle or vessel reasonably suspected to be carrying any person who is a
proclaimed offender, or any persons who has committed a non-cognizable offence, or against whom a
reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a non-cognizable offence, or any
person who is carrying any arms, ammunition or explosive substance believed to be unlawfully held by him,
and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary to effect such stoppage, search or seizure, as the
case may be.
Search and Seizure
Every person making a search under this Act shall have the power to break open the lock of any door, almirah,
safe, box, cupboard, drawer, package or other thing, if the key thereof is withheld. Any person arrested and
taken into custody under this Act and every property, arms, ammunition or explosive substance or any vehicle
or vessel seized under this Act, shall be made over to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station with the
least possible delay, together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest, or as the case may be,
occasioning the seizure of such property, arms, ammunition or explosive substance or any vehicle or vessel, as
the case may be.
Protection of persons acting in good faith under this Act
No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the
Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the
powers conferred by this Act.
Section 5: This section states that after the military has arrested someone under the AFSPA, they must hand
that person over to the nearest police station with the “least possible delay”. There is no definition in the act of
what constitutes the least possible delay. Some case-law has established that 4 to 5 days is too long. But since
this provision has been interpreted as depending on the specifics circumstances of each case, there is no precise
amount of time after which the section is violated.
Section 6: This section establishes that no legal proceeding can be brought against any member of the armed
forces acting under the AFSPA, without the permission of the Central Government.
Though human rights advocates term these provisions as draconian, one must consider the armed forces point
of view as they have to actually operate on ground against trained and armed insurgents without any concern or
protection of their own human rights. If we want our armed forces to operate effectively against armed
insurgents, we as a nation are obliged to provide them with necessary wherewithals and constitutional support.
This is exactly what has been catered through AFSPA by our national parliament.
Immunity of the Security Forces
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, which grants soldiers far-reaching powers to arrest and kill, has
impunity scripted into it. In line with Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 6 of AFSPA
prohibits the prosecution of a soldier accused of misusing its provisions unless the central government grants
sanction.
In Kashmir, the Army brass has used this section to protect its men from going to trial even in incidents where
they stand accused of heinous crimes such as the abduction and murder of unarmed civilians. In States like
Manipur, so powerless have the civilian authorities become in the face of the Army presence that no one is even
willing to take cognizance of serious crimes allegedly committed by soldiers.
In 2004, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh promised the people of Manipur that he would seriously consider
replacing AFSPA with a more humane law. He appointed a committee headed by Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy to
examine the functioning of the law; and the committee, noting the way in which the law was being abused,
suggested its replacement by an amended version of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. In the face of the
Defence Ministry’s objections, however, the report was quietly shelved.
Now, in the wake of the resurgence of mass protest in the Kashmir valley, the central government has once
again started making promises about amending AFSPA. The time to make these changes is now. Section 4
should be amended to explicitly incorporate the principles of necessity and proportionality and
Section 6 must be changed to allow for the prosecution of illegal acts in all cases except where the government
is able to convince the courts otherwise. Expedient steps like taking some districts out of the ambit of “declared
areas” just won’t do, it is felt.
13th September 2010
Cabinet Committee on Security is set to decide on the J&K government’s demand for partial withdrawal of
the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Indications suggest that the political leadership is coming around to
accept J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s demand for partial lifting of AFSPA, the Armed Forces are stating
that the State government is trying to pass the buck to the Army to conceal its own failure. The Army’s
argument already has support within the CCS with Defence minister A K Antony refusing to give in to
persuasion by Home minister P Chidambaram who has been spearheading the move to withdraw or amend the
law which the Army believes to be crucial for its operations in the troubled State. The Army has a sympathiser
also in Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee.
Army’s reservations have been conveyed to the Prime Minister by its Chief, General V K Singh, himself.
Significantly, General Singh had earlier publicly complained about the political leadership frittering away the
gains the armed forces have made in the fight against terror at a huge cost.
The key question before the CCS headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would be whether to or not to
withdraw the AFSPA from certain parts of the strife-torn Valley. It is a proposal backed by Jammu and
Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah as a confidence building measure after months of unrelenting protests
in the Valley.
Do you think the time has come to withdraw the Armed Forces Special Powers Act from Jammu & Kashmir?
Or will such an action lead to greater problems in the State?
September 2010
BJP holds dharnas in J&K to protest against autonomy
Pradesh BJP staged dharnas in 41 assembly constituencies of the State to protest against the demand for
granting autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir terming it as a “dead issue”, as per a Jammu report.
BJP State President Shamsher Singh Manhas, along with party MLA Jugal Kishore Sharma, led protest dharna
at Nagrota, which was attended by over 600 party activists from different parts of the constituency.
Speaking on the occasion Manhas said except for a handful of NC leaders, including its chief Farooq Abdullah
and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, no one from any of the State’s three regions has uttered even a single word
in favour of autonomy during all these years of Independence.
Since the NC-Congress combine has failed to come up to the expectations of the people and maintain law and
order in the State, the NC leaders are now trying to divert the attention of people from the real problems
confronting the State by talking about dead issues like autonomy, he alleged.
The BJP on 15th September 2010 put up a staunch opposition to any move to tinker with the Armed Forces
Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and grant of autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir. However, the party’s stance
regarding the AFSPA drew support only from ally Shiv Sena and the Samajwadi Party. The party blamed
Pakistan for violence in the Valley and sought a say for the Jammu and Ladakh regions while taking any
decision to defuse the ongoing crisis.
Reflecting the seriousness with which the BJP takes the Kashmir issue, its top four leaders, L K Advani, Nitin
Gadkari, Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley, attended the all-party meet. Having already made its stand clear,
Gadkari minced no words in arguing that the BJP would oppose any move to partially withdraw or dilute the
AFSPA. The party leaders also asked the government not to concede to demands for autonomy.
Sources said the BJP leaders argued that security forces including the Army have done an exemplary job in
dealing with separatists and fighting terrorists. They contended that no decision should be taken under pressure
which would demoralise the Forces.
Pak trying to exploit unrest in Kashmir: Army Chief
Pakistan is trying to take advantage of the unrest in Kashmir as indicated by a few infiltration attempts across
the border, Army Chief General VK Singh said on 19.09.2010.
“There have been more attempts at infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir in the last two months. There could be
some links (between the attempts and the situation in the border State). Pakistan is trying to exploit the
situation,” said Gen Singh, who was in Chennai to review the passing out parade at the Officers’ Training
Academy (OTA).
The army chief’s comments came a day after India asked Pakistan to take effective action against infiltration
from across the Line of Control (LoC) and dismantle terror infrastructure as it is people of Jammu and Kashmir
who suffer its consequences.
On the demand for dilution of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and its partial withdrawal from
Kashmir, Gen Singh said as the Supreme Court observed, the provisions of AFSPA are neither arbitrary nor in
violation of the Constitution of India. “We have told the Ministry of Defence whatever the army has to say and
the matter is under the Government’s consideration,” he said.
Congress top body discusses Kashmir
The Congress Core Group on 17.09.2010 met at Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s residence in New Delhi to
discuss the present unrest in Jammu and Kashmir. The meeting is learnt to have discussed the current unrest in
the Valley that has claimed nearly 70 lives since mid-June, 2010.
Ways to restore peace and normalcy in the Valley was reportedly explored during the meet.
The government has been trying hard to bring the situation under control as stone-pelting mobs continued to
clash with security personnel routinely. There has been relative calm in the Valley since the past two days due
to Eid celebrations on Saturday.
Singh and Congress chief Sonia Gandhi were present at the meeting, as were Finance minister Pranab
Mukherjee, Home minister P Chidambaram and party’s president’s political secretary Ahmed Patel. Prithviraj
Chavan, AICC in-charge of Jammu and Kashmir, and senior party leaders from the state Ghulam Nabi Azad
and Saifuddin Soz also attended the meeting.
I am a fighter and will overcome this crisis – Omar Abdullah
On the eve of the all-party delegation’s visit to Kashmir, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on 19.09.2010 ruled
out his resignation and hoped the controversial AFSPA would be removed from the entire State for which
people should create conducive atmosphere of peace.
Removal of the AFSPA would be the first confidence building measure for the people of Kashmir by the Centre
to demonstrate its sincerity and it could build on it to take further steps in future to resolve the problem, he said.
“I am not the one who shows his back when problems are there. I am a fighter and will overcome this crisis for
the people who have voted me to power. Insha Allah we will overcome this soon,” he told in an interview.
J & K unrest: Death toll crosses 104 in 100 days – 19.09.2010
Death continues to be the only constant in the Kashmir Valley with the toll mounting to 104 over the last 100
days.
Home Minister to lead team, invite goes to Hurriyat as well
Home Minister P Chidambaram and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal will be part of the
all-party delegation that will visit Jammu & Kashmir to assess the ground situation and gather views for inputs
to the Centre on tackling the unrest in the Valley. The delegation is expected to commence its two-day visit
from 20.09.2010.
While there will be an “open invitation” to all stakeholders to meet the delegation, official sources said that
written invitations would be sent to over 30 leaders, including separatist leaders like Syed Ali Shah Geelani and
Mirwaiz Umer Farooq.
Sources said Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee could also join the delegation, but it has not been finalised
yet. All political parties have been asked to nominate one representative to the delegation.
Earlier, Congress president Sonia Gandhi held deliberations with senior party leaders on the modalities of the
visit. Those present included Mukherjee, Chidambaram, A K Antony, Ghulam Nabi Azad, Prithviraj Chavan
and PCC chief Saifuddin Soz.
All Party Delegation visit Jammu and Kashmir – 21.09.2010
With a thick security blanket in place to enforce curfew, a 39-member all-party delegation on 20.09.2010 began
the task of assessing the situation in Kashmir by meeting representatives of political parties in Jammu and
Kashmir.
Some of the delegates called on separatist leaders, including hardliner Syed Ali Geelani, and moderates like
Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Mohammad Yasin Malik.
The Mirwaiz, in a memorandum to the delegation, said: “Let the Government of India act on the suggestions
given by the Kashmiris and facilitate to establish and empower an official body, a Kashmir Committee,
consisting of senior representatives of all major Indian political parties to develop and enter into a process of
engagement with the representatives of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Let this process be transparently
designed to deliver a negotiated solution to the Kashmir issue that is mutually worked towards by and
acceptable to all parties concerned.”
The delegation, headed by Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram, arrived Sri Nagar early in the morning and
drove to the S.K. International Conference Centre (SKICC). Setting the tone for three-day deliberations, which
will conclude in Jammu on 22.09.2010, Mr. Chidambaram told the visiting delegations that they were in
Jammu and Kashmir to listen to their views and give them a patient hearing and reach out to the State people.
In a closed door session, leaders of the National Conference (NC), the Congress, the People’s Democratic Party
(PDP), the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and other smaller groups put forth
their views on putting an end to the cycle of violence.
However, informed sources said most of the participants largely spoke about the resolution of the Kashmir
issue and reaching out to the victims of excesses in the past three months.
State Finance Minister Abdur Rahim Rather, who headed the NC delegation, said: “We stressed on the
restoration of autonomy as permanent solution to the Kashmir problem and also demanded that the Armed
Forces (Special Powers) Act be withdrawn and a dialogue process initiated. We did not expect immediate
results.” He said the NC would not reconsider its alliance with the Congress.
Pradesh Congress Committee chief Saifuddin Soz led the party delegation. “We stressed upon the unity of the
State, which cannot be compromised at all. We also asked the all-party delegation to reach out to civil society
in order to get the real feel of the situation,” he said.
The PDP delegation was led by its general secretary, Mohammad Dillawar Mir. Its senior leader and MLA,
Nizamuddin Bhat, said the party was shocked as they could not get adequate time to express their ideas. “We
only got 15 minutes and that was not enough.”
The PDP was even thinking of not meeting the all-party delegation as the government had “declared war on its
own people by imposing 72-hour long curfew,” but “since we were part of a decision taken about it in Delhi,
we were morally bound to come here.”
CPI(M) State secretary Y. Tarigami told the delegates: “The current crisis is the manifestation of aggregation of
failed political approaches to resolve the basic problem. There has been failure to develop and evolve a
sustainable, result-oriented dialogue process, debates and discussions aimed at resolving the main problem
rather than dealing with its offshoots.”
Mr. Tarigami reminded Mr. Chidambaram of his various statements, including the one in which the latter
termed Kashmir a “unique problem, which requires a unique solution.” He told the Minister that his statement
needed to be implemented in letter and in spirit. “This approach needs to be carried forward and strengthened.”
“Cutting across the party lines and their respective positions vis-à-vis the Kashmir problem, Parliament is
expected to address the Kashmir issue with the utmost seriousness. There could be difference of opinion, but
that does not denote that Kashmir can be made a battleground for the conflicting political ideology at the cost of
Kashmiris’ genuine political aspirations,” he added.
Centre unveils 8 point formula for Kashmir – 26.09.2010
The Centre will appoint a group of interlocutors, under the chairmanship of an eminent person, to begin the
process of sustained dialogue in Jammu and Kashmir with political parties, groups, students, civil society and
other stakeholders.
The decision to begin the process of sustained dialogue was part of an eight-point initiative taken at a meeting
of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) in New Delhi on 25.10.2010. The meeting was chaired by Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh.
Briefing journalists on the slew of measures finalised, Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram said the
decisions were based on the report submitted by him to the Prime Minister and the inputs of the all-party
delegation that had visited Srinagar and Jammu on September 20 and 21.10.2010. Mr. Chidambaram had led
the 39-member all-party delegation to the State.
In a step aimed at reaching out to the people of the State, the Centre would advise the Jammu and Kashmir
government to release all students detained for stone-pelting and similar violations of law, and to withdraw all
charges.
Mr. Chidambaram said the Centre would request the State government to immediately convene a meeting of the
Unified Command to review deployment of security forces in the Kashmir Valley, especially in Srinagar, with
particular reference to descaling those at bunkers and checkpoints in the city and other towns. He said the
Unified Command would review notifications issued for disturbed areas.
Replying to a question, he said that withdrawal or dilution of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA)
was not discussed.
He said the government would grant an ex gratia of Rs. five lakh to the family of each of those killed in civil
disturbances in Kashmir since June 11, 2010. He said the Centre would also advise the State government to
review cases of all Public Safety Act (PSA) detenus and withdraw detention orders in appropriate cases.
Replying to a question, the Home Minister said there were 84 persons under judicial custody, 110 under police
custody and 51 had been detained under the Public Safety Act since civil disturbances began in the Kashmir
Valley in June. He said that 108 persons had lost their lives in civil disturbances.
The Centre would request the State government to take steps to immediately reopen all schools, colleges, and
universities, hold special classes and ensure that examinations are conducted on schedule for the current
academic year.
Mixed reactions from mainstream and separatist political parties – 26.09.2010
Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s announcement of an eight-point formula to defuse the crisis in
Kashmir has evoked mixed reaction from mainstream and separatist political parties.
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah welcomed the Centre’s decision to move towards finding a solution to the
Kashmir problem. Four points concerned the State government and of that “we have already decided on one
regarding opening of schools on 27.10.2010.” He said his government would take gradual steps to de-escalate
the tension in the area.
“The Unified Headquarters will review areas under the Disturbed Areas Act but don’t expect results after the
first meet, it will take time. We need to discuss how to reduce security forces’ footprint,” Mr. Abdullah said.
Opposition People’s Democratic Party’s senior leader Nizamuddin Bhat was cautious in responding to the
announcement. “To address the current situation in Kashmir is a complex issue. We will have a look at the
announcement and will discuss it within ourselves before making a response but one thing is clear that the
thrust is to be given to minimising the trust deficit,” he said.
Senior NC leader and Law Minister Ali Muhammad Sagar said it was a good initiative especially the one on
appointing interlocutors. “We hope that these interlocutors would meet separatist leadership and take forward
the dialogue process for the peaceful resolution of Kashmir issue. Other announcements are also positive in
nature,” he said.
Pradesh Congress Committee chief Saifuddin Soz too welcomed the appointment of interlocutors, saying it was
a good beginning. “I have heard about the release of all students, reviewing the laws, and a package to the
families who have lost their dear ones. This all has relieved me,” Professor Soz told.
Describing the eight-point package as mere ‘eye wash,’ Chairman of hard-line Hurriyat Syed Ali Shah Geelani
said India was buying time. “None of our demands has been discussed.” “This is mere time-buying tactics
adopted by India. We will not bow down to the economic packages by the New Delhi. Our youth did not
sacrifice their lives for the economic packages,” said Mr. Geelani. He said the protests would continue “till
India accepts Kashmir as an international dispute and other four conditions laid down by our party.”
On removing bunkers from Srinagar city, Mr. Geelani said this is was just a cosmetic measure which won’t
help. “We want complete demilitarisation of Jammu and Kashmir and not cosmetic measures.”
Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chairman Yasin Malik said, “Our working committee will meet and
discuss it threadbare and comment.”
Dream Dare Win
www.jeywin.com
*****
Australian Elections 2010 and Julia Gillard, the first elected woman PM
Tuesday, September 14th, 2010
Julie Richards
Australia’s incumbent Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who is the first woman to hold the position, was on
14.09.2010 sworn in along with her 19 cabinet ministers in Canberra, Australia.
The History
Conservative parties in virtually all western democracies have shifted to the right economically, and this
includes the Australian Liberal Party. But, in most countries a new generation of conservative leaders
displays eagerness to adopt more socially liberal policies in tandem with full-throttle free market (ie right wing)
economics. In the case of Tony Abbott’s Liberals, however, the party has not only moved right of the earlier
Turnbull leadership years, but it has also shifted to a more authoritarian position on the social scale.
The Labour Party reflects this drift, now occupying a space to the right of the 1980s Liberals. The debate
between the two main parties, however heated, is within narrowing parameters. The two parties are now closer
together than at any other time. The clash of economic vision of earlier campaigns is absent. It’s no longer
about whether the prevailing neoliberal orthodoxy is actually desirable, but merely a question of which party
can manage it best.
By contrast, the Greens, once pretty much a single issue party, have emerged with a comprehensive social
democratic manifesto, more in tune with an earlier Labor Party, and significantly more socially liberal than
either of the others.
The Australian federal elections, 2010
The Australian federal elections were held on Saturday, 21 August 2010 for members of the 43rd Parliament
of Australia. The incumbent centre-left Australian Labour Party led by Prime Minister Julia Gillard defeated
the opposition centre-right Liberal/National Coalition led by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, forming a
minority government with the support of an Australian Greens MP and three independent MPs.
Labor and the Coalition each won 72 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, four short of the
requirement for majority government, resulting in the first hung parliament since the 1940 election. Six
crossbenchers hold the balance of power. Greens MP Adam Bandt and independent MPs Andrew Wilkie, Rob
Oakeshott and Tony Windsor declared their support for Labor on confidence and supply. After gaining the
support of four crossbenchers Labor will be able to form a minority government.
Crossbench is designed as below:
• Adam Bandt won the first seat for the Greens at a general election in the seat of Melbourne. He had
previously announced he would align with Labor in the event of a hung parliament. On 1 September the
Greens declared their support for Labor on confidence and supply.
• Andrew Wilkie, a former Greens candidate and now independent, was elected as the Member for
Denison. On 2 September he declared his support for Labor on confidence and supply.
• Tony Crook won the seat of O’Connor for the National Party of Western Australia, defeating Liberal
Party incumbent Wilson Tuckey. There was dispute over affiliation, with some classing Crook as a
member of the Coalition and including him in their Coalition totals. This was subsequently clarified by
the WA National Party: “The Nationals WA as an independent political party is not bound by the rules
of a coalition agreement”.Crook says, “In every news report and press report we see, my number is
being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn’t be”. There is no federal Coalition agreement in
Western Australia; Crook has stated he is a crossbencher, and he and the WA Nationals are open to
negotiating with either side to form government. On 6 September Crook declared his support for the
Coalition on confidence and supply, but would otherwise sit on the crossbench.
• Bob Katter, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, all independents, were re-elected. Both Katter and
Windsor were successful at previous elections, while Oakeshott was elected at the 2008 Lyne by-
election. All are former members of the National Party, a minor party in the Coalition. However, all
three said they would be open to negotiating with either side to form government. They said they would
engage in discussion as a bloc but vote individually. On 7 September Katter declared his support for the
Coalition on confidence and supply. Later that day, Windsor and Oakeshott declared their support for
Labor on confidence and supply.
Independent MP Bob Katter and National Party of Western Australia MP Tony Crook declared their support for
the Coalition on confidence and supply.
The resulting 76–74 margin allowed Labor to form a minority government. On 14 September 2010 Prime
Minister Julia Gillard, government ministers and parliamentary secretaries were sworn in by the Governor-
General Quentin Bryce.
In the Senate, the Greens will gain the balance of power on 1 July 2011 with nine seats after winning one seat
in each state.
More than 14 million Australians were enrolled to vote at the time of the election. Australia has compulsory
voting (since 1925) and uses preferential ballot (since 1919) in single-member seats for the House of
Representatives and single transferable vote (since 1949) with optional group voting tickets (since 1984) in the
proportionally represented Senate. The election was conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).
Swearing in
Ms Julia Gillard was joined at the swearing-in by partner Tim Mathieson and frontbench colleagues including
Treasurer Wayne Swan and his wife Kim. Ms Gillard, now Australia’s first elected female prime
minister, signed a document and swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II.
It is the second time in just a few weeks that Ms Gillard has been sworn in as Prime Minister on 14.09.2010,
after she ousted Kevin Rudd from the top job on June 24. Her pledge of allegiance was followed by the
swearing in of 19 other cabinet ministers, 10 ministers and 12 parliamentary secretaries.
At a meeting of the federal executive council after Ms Gillard was appointed Prime Minister, a new department
was created, the names of two others were changed and provisions made for the legal basis of the new ministry.
Gillard’s cabinet includes Rudd, who is the new foreign minister, her deputy and treasurer Wayne Swan and
former pop star Peter Garrett, who switches from environment to education. Former foreign minister Stephen
Smith will now be the defence minister.
There are 19 cabinet ministers, 10 ministers and 12 Parliamentary Secretaries in the new government.
The wafer-thin majority of one seat in Parliament will force Gillard to negotiate issue-by-issue with the
opposition Liberals led by Tony Abbott, according to analysts.
SECOND JULIA GILLARD MINISTRY
TITLE MINISTER OTHER CHAMBER
Prime Minister The Hon Julia Gillard MP Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Minister for Regional Australia, The Hon Simon Crean MP Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Regional Development and
Local Government Minister for The Hon Simon Crean MP Senator the Hon Mark Arbib
the Arts
The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP Senator the Hon Mark Arbib
Minister for Social Inclusion
The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Minister for Privacy and Freedom
of Information Senator the Hon Mark Arbib The Hon Kate Ellis MP
Minister for Sport The Hon Gary Gray AO MP Senator the Hon Penny Wong
Treasurer (Deputy Prime The Hon Wayne Swan MP Senator the Hon Penny Wong
Minister)
The Hon Bill Shorten MP Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Assistant Treasurer
The Hon Bill Shorten MP Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Minister for Financial Services
and Superannuation The Hon David Bradbury MP
Minister for Tertiary Senator the Hon Chris Evans The Hon Simon Crean MP
Education, Skills, Jobs and The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP
Workplace Relations
The Hon Kate Ellis MP (Jobs and Workplace Relations)
(Leader of the Government in the
Senate) Senator the Hon Mark Arbib The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP
Minister for School Education, Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins (Tertiary Education and Skills)
Early Childhood and Youth
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Minister for Employment
Participation and Childcare Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Minister for Broadband, Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Communications and the
Digital Economy
Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon Kevin Rudd MP Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Minister for Trade The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Minister for Defence The Hon Stephen Smith MP Senator the Hon Chris Evans
(Deputy Leader of the House) The Hon Warren Snowdon MP Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs The Hon Warren Snowdon MP Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Minister for Defence Science and The Hon Jason Clare MP Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Personnel
Senator the Hon David Feeney
Minister for Defence Materiel
Parliamentary Secretary for
Defence
Minister for Immigration and The Hon Chris Bowen MP Senator the Hon Kim Carr
Citizenship
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy
Parliamentary Secretary for
Immigration and Citizenship
Minister for Infrastructure and The Hon Anthony Albanese MP Senator the Hon Kim Carr
Transport
The Hon Catherine King MP
(Leader of the House)
Minister for Health and Ageing The Hon Nicola Roxon MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Minister for Indigenous Health The Hon Warren Snowdon MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Minister for Mental Health and The Hon Mark Butler MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Ageing
The Hon Catherine King MP
Parliamentary Secretary for
Health and Ageing
Minister for Families, Housing, The Hon Jenny Macklin MP Senator the Hon Mark Arbib
Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs The Hon Kate Ellis MP Senator the Hon Penny Wong
Minister for the Status of Women Senator the Hon Mark Arbib The Hon Jenny Macklin MP
Minister for Social Housing and Senator the Hon Jan McLucas
Homelessness
The Hon Julie Collins MP
Parliamentary Secretary for
Disabilities and Carers
Minister for Sustainability, The Hon Tony Burke MP Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Environment, Water,
Population and Communities Senator the Hon Don Farrell
Minister for Finance and Senator the Hon Penny Wong The Hon Wayne Swan MP
Deregulation Special Minister of The Hon Gary Gray AO MP
State
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry Senator the Hon Penny Wong
Minister Assisting on
Deregulation
Minister for Innovation, Senator the Hon Kim Carr The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP
Industry, Science and Research
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry The Hon Bill Shorten MP
Minister for Small Business
Attorney-General The Hon Robert McClelland MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
(Vice President of the Executive The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Council)
The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Minister for Home Affairs
Minister for Agriculture, Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig The Hon Tony Burke MP
Fisheries and Forestry
The Hon Dr Mike Kelly AM MP
(Manager of Government
Business in the Senate)
Minister for Resources and The Hon Martin Ferguson AM Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Energy MP
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Minister for Tourism The Hon Martin Ferguson AM
MP
Minister Assisting the Minister
for Tourism Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Minister for Climate Change The Hon Greg Combet AM MP Senator the Hon Penny Wong
and Energy Efficiency The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP
Parliamentary Secretary for
Climate Change and Energy
Efficiency
Minister for Human Services The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP Senator the Hon Mark Arbib
Tony Abbott’s Stand
Tony Abbot has started ringing MPs to confirm his new frontbench team, dumping Queensland MP Alex
Somlyay as party whip. In the finely balanced hung Parliament the role of the whip to ensure MPs turn up to
crucial votes will be vital and Mr Abbott has handed the job to Queenslander Warren Entsch.
Mr Somlyay claimed that Tony wanted renewal and that he had announced before the last election that this
would be his last term. Mr Abbott could announce his frontbench amid rumblings in the ranks sparked by
finance spokesman Andrew Robb’s aborted leadership challenge for Julie Bishop’s deputy’s job.
His real target however was regarded as Joe Hockey, who holds the Treasury portfolio.
If Mr Robb had secured the deputy leadership he would have been able to request his portfolio of choice. Mr
Abbott is expected to elevate his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull to the frontbench and shadow cabinet under the
changes.
Dream Dare Win
www.jeywin.com
*****
All India Single Entrance Test for MBBS and MD from 2011?
Tuesday, September 14th, 2010
Come 2011 and there will be only one common entrance test each for over 30,000 MBBS seats and over 11,000
MD seats in all government and medical colleges in the country.
This important decision, taken by the Medical Council of India and accepted by the Union ministry of health,
was conveyed to the Supreme Court on 13.08.2010 bringing huge relief to lakhs of aspiring doctors.
Earlier, students wanting to take up courses in medicine had to appear in at least five to six entrance tests for
various colleges and worry about attendant problems like clash of exam dates as well as travel to distant places
for counselling for allotment of seats.
But from 2011, there will be just one entrance test each for MBBS and MD courses offered by all 271 medical
colleges, 138 government-run and 133 under private management. These colleges together offer over 31,000
seats for MBBS courses and another 11,000 for PG.
The confusion caused by multiple entrance tests and counselling saw hundreds of students rush to the Supreme
Court every year complaining about the system where they were left high and dry even for making a single
mistake in their choices.
One such petition filed by Simran Jain through advocate A D N Rao had sought a direction from the apex court
to MCI and the Centre for a single window system for admissions.
During hearing of the petition before a Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale, the
decision for one common entrance test was conveyed by MCI counsel and senior advocate Amarendra Saran.
Additional solicitor generalP P Malhotra said the government had accepted MCI’s suggestion to amend the
regulation concerning admissions to medical colleges.
The state of affairs of private medical colleges and their admission process had come for some serious scrutiny
in the apex court, which said last year, “Every year, this is happening. We know how these tricks are played on
students every year.”
Interestingly, the malaise seems to have spread to government medical colleges too as the apex court had in
2009 asked Director General of Health Services Dr Mangla Kohli to look into allegations of malpractices in
admissions into some such colleges in various states.
Decision on All India Medical Common Entrance Test put on hold
Bowing to pressure from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, the Centre has put on hold the decision
by the Medical Council of India for conducting a common entrance test (CET) for MBBS courses from the next
2010 – 2011 academic session. The move has also been opposed by the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam (AIADMK).
The decision comes just two days after the Medical Council of India (MCI) announced with much fanfare its
decision to hold an all-India entrance test for admission to medical colleges for undergraduate courses from
2011-2012. The MCI was awaiting formal approval of the notification to this effect. Mr. Karunanidhi had
written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, urging him to “reconsider” its move to conduct a national-level
common entrance examination for MBBS courses and said that the State could not accept the move as it
amounted to an “infringement by the Union government on the autonomy of States.” A copy of the letter was
sent to Union Health and Family Welfare Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad
Mr. Karunanidhi wrote to the Prime Minister on 16.08.2010 referring to the submission made by the Centre in
the Supreme Court on the MCI recommendation to conduct a common entrance examination from next year.
The Board of Governors of the MCI formally announced the decision the following day, saying that a
notification would come in a day or two. According to Mr. Karunanidhi, Tamil Nadu had scrapped the entrance
examination for engineering and medical admissions in 2007-08 through legislation with the Presidential
assent. This had been done to safeguard the interests of the socially and economically disadvantaged students
from the rural areas. The move benefited many such students and also resulted in more doctors agreeing to
work in rural areas.
Tamil Nadu had also implemented 69 per cent reservation for socially disadvantaged sections, which would be
difficult to implement when there was a common entrance examination, Mr. Karunanidhi said in his letter.
On 19.08.2010, Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court seeking to implead itself in a pending matter on which
the Centre submitted that the MCI would come out with a notification for the CET for admission to medical
courses.
On the same day, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the AIADMK raised the matter in Parliament with the
members demanding that the common entrance examinations for medical and engineering admissions be done
away with, alleging infringement on the rights of the States.
TN State allowed to implead in All-India medical entrance test case – 10.09.10
The Supreme Court on 10.09.2010 permitted the Tamil Nadu government to implead itself in a case relating to
the proposal for introduction of a common all-India entrance test for medical courses in the country.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale, while allowing Tamil Nadu’s application, asked the
petitioner to file an application impleading all the States when it was pointed out that they had not been made
parties. It directed the matter to be listed for further hearing next week.
In its application, the State opposed the proposed Medical Council of India regulation for conducting a single
common entrance test. It sought permission to implead itself in a pending matter in which a submission had
been made on behalf of the Centre about the MCI’s proposal for amendment of the regulations relating to
graduate and postgraduate courses to pave the way for a CET.
The MCI decided to keep the proposal in abeyance following objection from Tamil Nadu.
The application stated that though the State was not a party in the pending matter any order passed by the court
in it would seriously prejudice its interests and hence it must be heard before any order was passed approving
the amendment and the CET.
It submitted that Tamil Nadu had abolished entrance tests for admissions to professional courses from 2007 and
the selection and admissions were being made as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Admission in
Professional Educational Institutions Act.
The entrance test was abolished on the recommendations of an expert committee, which found that CET was a
cumbersome process. “The CET causes mental agony to the students and parents especially from rural areas
and the persons hailing from lower strata of society,” it said.
Tamil Nadu said that it was found that rural students were unable to compete with urban students in the CET
since there was lack of training for rural students to undertake and face such competitive-level examination.
“The number of institutions and study materials that are available in the urban areas are not available in rural
areas and, therefore, students hailing from urban areas always have an edge over rural students.”The application
said the proposed MCI regulation for conducting a single entrance test for admission to medical courses would
be in contradiction to the State legislation and would affect the policy of the State government. Tamil Nadu also
made it clear that if there was any conflict between the basis of selection made by the Centre and the State
legislation, the State law would prevail.
MBBS Doctors must clear ‘Exit Test’ to commence Practice – 18.09.2010
Those intending to become doctors and treat patients may soon have to clear a common exit test after getting
the MBBS degree from medical colleges.
The regulating body, Medical Council of India (MCI), has given a statutory recommendation for a mandatory
exit test, which is under active consideration of the health ministry, the Supreme Court was informed on
17.08.2010.
Considering the sensitive nature of the profession — dealing with life and death — and keeping in mind
varying standards of education in medical colleges, MCI has proposed a common exit examination for MBBS
pass-outs intending to become doctors and treat patients, Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam told a Bench of
Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale.
This recommendation of the MCI was to standardise the skills of doctors, said the regulatory body’s counsel
senior advocate Amarendra Saran supplementing the arguments of the health ministry advanced through the
SG.
This is in line with the decision of the Bar Council of India (BCI) making it mandatory for law graduates to
clear a test to be able to practice in courts.
Importantly, both Subramaniam and MCI counsel, senior advocate Amarendra Saran, informed the Bench that
very soon a notification would be issued to put in place a single window admission test for filling post-
graduate course seats in all private and government medical colleges from the next academic session
(2011-12).
The Centre on Friday informed the Supreme Court that it supported the Medical Council of India’s proposal to
have a common entrance test (CET) for admission to post graduate medical courses and that it wanted to notify
it within a week.
This would ease the tension and trouble of thousands of students competing for few PG seats, for which they
have to travel to different places to appear in entrance examinations for PG courses of different colleges.
Clashing of the dates of examination used to add to the woes of the students. But, these will be a thing of past
from next year, thanks to the common entrance test for PG seats in all private and government medical
colleges.
However, the joint attempt of MCI and the government to push through the common admission test for MBBS
courses in private and government medical colleges did not get the stamp of approval from the apex court,
which said it could not do so without getting the responses from the state governments.
The reluctance of the Supreme Court stemmed from the fact that Tamil Nadu, which has a special law for the
purpose which has already received President’s assent, had strongly objected to the common admission test for
MBBS across the country.
The Bench said: “We do not know which all states will object to this and how the students, a volatile
community, would react to this proposal. So, let the Centre put before us the proposal and we will seek the
response of the state governments.”
The Solicitor General agreed and said though the health ministry was carrying out the task of achieving a
consensus among the states for a single window admission test for MBBS courses in all medical colleges, it
would be easier and expeditious if the apex court helped through the judicial process to achieve the goal that
would benefit the entire community of students aspiring to be doctors.
Giving the Centre a week to place the proposal before it for issuance of notices to the state governments to
elicit their response, the Bench said: “The courts have already contributed to a lot of problems and we do not
want to contribute to this by giving a go-bye to the settled procedure.”
Senior counsel Amrender Saran, appearing for the Medical Council of India, said new rules and regulations for
the CET had been put in place and they had been approved by the government. There would be centralised
counselling after the CET and at the end of the course there would an exit test for doctors. The Bench directed
the matter to be listed after a week.
Dream Dare Win
www.jeywin.com
*****
Medicine to be taught at IIT and IIT entrance with 12th marks + aptitude test
Friday, September 10th, 2010
Union Human Resource and Development (HRD) Minister Kapil Sibal on 10.09.2010 said the Indian Institute
of Technology (IITs) across the country will soon introduce new courses in medicine and even enroll foreign
students as well as recruit foreign faculties at the post graduate level.
“The government has decided to seek the approval of the Medical Council of India (MCI) for the course. The
IIT council meeting decided to carry out appropriate amendment in the Institute of Technologies Act to enable
the IITs to offer the medicine programme,” said Sibal.
“We are making sure that wherever the instruction leads to a degree relating to any branch of medicine, then of
course clearances from Medical Council of India under the Act will have to be taken,” he added.
Sibal said the council has also decided to enable IITs to recruit foreign faculties, which should not be more than
10 per cent of the total faculty strength.
“In principle, we agreed that IITs are entitled to recruiting foreign faculties. A mechanism will be set up with
the help of the Home Ministry to ensure that there is no hiccup in the process and there is easy exit and entry of
people,” he added, after a meeting of the IIT council.
Crack IIT entrance with 12th marks, aptitude test
Excellent chance has come to the IIT aspiring students, who struggle a lot to crack IIT entrance. Just get good
marks and give aptitude test, you will get through IIT entrance soon.
Kapil Sibal, the Union Minister of Human Resource Development, announced major changes in the process of
getting admission in Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and other engineering colleges. Class 12 marks along
with an aptitude test would decide admissions into IITs, informed Sibal.
However, he also stated that modalities were still being worked out to make the changes in the admission
process and no timeframe has been set for implementing the new proposals.
The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) entrance exams needs an overhaul to discourage coaching institutes,
Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal said on 10.09.2010. “The present system of coaching must
go as it is detrimental to the quality of intake,” Sibal told reporters after a meeting of the council of IITs. The
changes in the pattern of engineering entrance exams had been proposed by the ministry earlier as well.
A committee was formed under IIT Kharagpur director Damodar Acharya which suggested including
weightage of the 12th Class result and a national level aptitude test for admission in engineering courses.
“The Acharya committee has given its report and it was widely agreed that the entrance exam system needs to
be changed but it is yet to finalize how,” Sibal said.
Though a consensus could not be built on the recommendations of the Acharya report, Sibal said all members
agreed on the need for a change. “There are two things. Firstly, the present system of coaching must go as it is
detrimental to quality of intake; secondly, the problem of children appearing for multiple entrance exams causes
financial and psychological pressure on the children and their family,” Sibal said.
The minister said there were suggestions that state-wise percentile given to students will be considered for the
entrance. “We should look at the 12th level performance… otherwise students from some states may get left
out,” he said.
“Weightage will be given to 12th exam marks, and that marks will be based on the performance through the
year. It will automatically discourage coaching,” he said.
The minister said a committee has been formed under Science and Technology Secretary T. Ramasami and it
will submit its report in three months. “After that we’ll involve all IITs and have a full discussion,” he said.
Sibal added that the IITs have said they wanted to continue with the joint entrance exam. ”The IITs don’t want
to do away with the JEE but they have said that if an alternative is provided they will discuss it with their
faculty,” he added.
Dream Dare Win
www.jeywin.com
*****
New ‘Super Bug’ (New Delhi metallo-betalactamase-1) really spreads from India and
Pakistan?
Friday, August 13th, 2010
Mirunalini
“Health tourists” flocking to south Asia have carried a new class of antibiotic-resistant superbugs to Britain,
researchers reported on 11.08.2010, warning that the bacteria could spread worldwide.
This so called NDM-1 gene was first identified last year by Cardiff University’s Timothy Walsh in two types of
bacteria — Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli — in a Swedish patient admitted to hospital in India.
NDM-1 stands for New Delhi metallo-betalactamase-1.
Worryingly, the new NDM-1 bacteria are resistant even to carbapenems, a group of antibiotics often reserved
as a last resort for emergency treatment for multi-drug resistant bugs.
Researchers said the bugs had been brought into Britain by patients who travelled to India or Pakistan for
cosmetic surgery. “If these infections were allowed to continue without appropriate treatment, then certainly
one would expect to see some sort of mortality,” Walsh, a microbiology professor, told BBC radio. “It’s going
to be very difficult to treat the infections once the patients present with these types of bacteria. You won’t get
well.”
In the new study, led by Walsh and Madras University’s Karthikeyan Kumarasamy, researchers set out to
determine how common the NDM-1 producing bacteria were in South Asia and Britain, where several cases
had turned up. Checking hospital patients with suspect symptoms, they found 44 cases (1.5 per cent) of those
screened in Chennai, and 26 (eight per cent) of those screened in Haryana. They likewise found the superbug in
Bangladesh and Pakistan, as well as 37 cases in Britain, some in patients who had recently returned from
having cosmetic surgery in India or Pakistan. “India also provides cosmetic surgery for other Europeans and
Americans, and it is likely that NDM—1 will spread worldwide,” said the study, published in The Lancet.
NDM-1 was mostly found in E. coli, a common source of community-acquired urinary tract infections, and K.
pneumoniae, and was impervious to all antibiotics except two, tigecycline and colistin.
India rejects superbug linkage
India has reacted strongly to a study linking a multiple drug-resistant superbug detected in Britain to India and
said the bacteria are not a public health threat. It said Indian hospitals were safe as a number of such bacteria
survived in nature and were reported from several other countries.
The conclusions of the study are “loaded with inference” that the antibiotic-resistant organism possibly
originated in India, an official statement by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare said in New Delhi on
12.08.2010. “While such organisms may be circulating more commonly in the world due to international travel,
to link it with the safety of surgery hospitals in India and citing isolated examples to show that India is not a
safe place to visit due to the presence of such organism in Indian environment are wrong,” V.M. Katoch,
Director-General, Indian Council of Medical Research, said.
Several authors had declared a conflict of interest in the publication of the study. The study was funded by the
European Union and two pharmaceutical companies — Wellcome Trust and Wyeth — that produce antibiotics
for treatment of such cases, the statement said.
The government also strongly objected to the naming of this enzyme as New Delhi metallo beta lactamase -1
(NDM-1) and refuted the conclusion that hospitals in India were not safe for treatment.
Though not disputing the validity of the study, he said the conclusions were “unfair” and “scary.” The
conclusions and interpretations of the study were wrong, scientifically invalid and aimed at creating a scare.
Madras University’s Karthikeyan Kumarasamy from Erode had his elation set back slightly at the interpretation
the media had given his article. “That it was transmitted from India is hypothetical. Unless we analyse samples
from across the world to confirm its presence, we can only speculate,” he said.
Researchers crack open secret of superbug’s resistance
Scientists have stumbled upon a central processing unit (CPU) of a superbug’s weaponry which will provide
new options to fight back and disable the virulent bacteria.
A team from the McMaster University’s Institute for Infectious Disease Research has revealed that a small
chemical, made by the superbug Staphylococcus aureus and its drug-resistant forms, determines this disease’s
strength and ability to infect.
The bacteria are the cause for a wide range of difficult-to-treat human infectious diseases such as pneumonia,
toxic-shock syndrome and flesh-eating diseases. It is known as the superbug as it has become increasingly
resistant to antibiotics and especially troublesome in hospitals.
“We’ve found that when these small chemicals in the bacteria are shut down, the bacteria is rendered non-
functional and non-infectious,” said Nathan Magarvey, principal study investigator and assistant professor of
biochemistry at McMaster. “We’re now set on hacking into this pathogen and making its system crash.” These
findings appeared in Science.
To identify these “pathogen small molecule CPUs”, the researchers used cutting-edge chemical mining tools to
reveal the molecular wiring associated with their formation.
Then, to uncover its function, the McMaster scientists shut off its synthesis, showing that the deadly pathogens
had been tamed and were unable to burst open red blood cells, said a McMaster’s statement.
Cell to keep record of hospital-acquired infections soon
India is working to set up a cell that will issue guidelines and keep a record of hospital-acquired infections,”
V.M. Katoch, Director-General of the Indian Council of Medical Research, said in New Delhi on 12.08.2010.
As of now, India did not have any rules to check hospital-acquired infections.
Superbug threat – The Hindu Editorial on 16.08.2010
Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae strains resistant to carbapenem, a powerful antibiotic, and one of the last
lines of treatment for infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria, are becoming more widespread in India.
The resistance arises on account of a new gene that codes for metallo-beta-lactamase enzyme.
The drug-resistant bacterial gene, the so-called superbug, was named New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase-1
(NDM-1) in 2009 when it was first identified in a Swedish person admitted to a hospital in New Delhi.
A study, reported online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, (“Emergence of a new antibiotic resistant
mechanism in India, Pakistan, and the UK: a molecular, biological, and epidemiological study,” by Karthikeyan
K. Kumarasamy et al.) found that apart from several locations in India, the carbapenem-resistant strain was
seen in 37 U.K. patients who had undergone elective and cosmetic surgery in India and two neighbouring
countries.
According to a study published in March, 2010 in the Journal of Association of Physicians of India (JAPI), 22
cases of carbapenem-resistant NDM-1 were collected within three months from a Mumbai hospital. The spread
and increasing numbers come as no surprise as the drug is overused.
Resistance to extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL) drugs like third-generation cephalsporins is between
60 and 70 per cent on average in India, compared with less than 15 per cent seen in many developed countries.
A common way of treating the severe form of ESBL infections is the use of carbapenem — which becomes the
drug of choice as it has the lowest resistance rates and the broadest action against Gram-negative infections.
Inappropriate and indiscriminate use of carbapenem, a reserved antibiotic, has played a major role in the
development of the carbapenem-resistant gene, including the new NDM-1 strain.
From being absent a few years ago, NDM-1 is beginning to show up. Unlike ESBL, which has become a
community infection, NDM-1 is, in all probability, still a hospital-acquired infection. Drug-resistant NDM-1
strains are being seen only now but they are a cause for worry because only a few drugs are available to treat
Gram-negative infections. The prevalence can increase within a relatively short time, since the NDM-1 gene is
carried in the plasmids of the Gram-negative bacteria. These plasmids can move from one bacterium to another,
and even to different species.
There is still a good chance of keeping the prevalence low, provided a two-pronged approach is adopted:
instituting a national antibiotic policy that restricts the use of carbapenem and other higher-end antibiotics to
hospital settings and only for patients with severe infections, and having a national registry of drug-resistant
strains.
WHO endorses superbug study findings – 21.08.2010
Even as the controversy over the origin of the new antibiotic-resistant bacteria named after India — New Delhi
Metallo-beta lactamase-1 (NDM-1) — continues, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has virtually endorsed
the study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal saying that the article had drawn attention to the
issue of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and, in particular, raised the awareness of infections caused by multi-
drug resistant bacteria.
In a statement issued on 21.08.2010, the WHO said that while multi-drug resistant bacteria are not new and will
continue to appear, this development requires monitoring and further study to understand the extent and modes
of transmission, and to define the most effective measures for control.
AMR will be the theme of the WHO’s World Health Day 2011.
Dream Dare Win
www.jeywin.com
*****
Water Dispute between India and Pakistan – Will it trigger first Water War?
Tuesday, August 10th, 2010
Shanthi Rajagopal
As India and Pakistan move towards the welcome resumption of dialogue, New Delhi needs to factor in a new
reality: More than Kashmir, it is the accusation that India is stealing water that is rapidly becoming the “core
issue” in the Pakistani establishment’s narrative about bilateral problems.
Concern is growing in Pakistan that India is pursuing policies in an attempt to strangulate Pakistan by
exercising control over the water flow of Pakistan’s rivers. The concern is most related to Pakistan’s
agricultural sector, which would be greatly affected by the building of dams and by the external control of the
waters of several rivers that flow into Pakistan. The issue has a layered complexity, as three of the rivers flow
into Pakistan through the Indian portion of Jammu & Kashmir, the territory over which the two countries have
waged multiple wars.
A group of more than 20 different UN bodies warned earlier this month that the world may be perilously close
to its first water war. “Water is linked to the crises of climate change, energy and food supplies and prices, and
troubled financial markets,” said the report. “Unless their links with water are addressed and water crises
around the world are resolved, these other crises may intensify and local water crises may worsen, converging
into a global water crisis and leading to political insecurity and conflict at various levels.”
With the per capita availability of water declining in Pakistan due to rising population and poor water
management, there is a sense of an imminent water crisis. The problems are plenty-
• Groundwater is said to be under stress through over-exploitation
• River flows are reported to be diminishing
• Some rivers to be so polluted as to be no more than sewers
• Water supply in cities is reportedly intermittent and unreliable
In most years, the Indus barely makes it beyond the Kotri barrage in Sindh, leading to the ingress of sea water,
the increase in soil salinity and the destruction of agriculture in deltaic districts like Thatta and Badin.
While this appears to be an internal problem in Pakistan, the popular refrain in the country seems to be that
India is behind the problem. This is being echoed in the media, picked up by the jihadists, and acquiesced in at
the official and expert levels through silence (or even aggravated by official statements). This is a new
development. Until recently, there were criticisms of particular Indian projects on the western rivers as not
compliant with the Treaty, but no accusations of ‘water theft’ by India.
Though Pakistan’s water woes predate recent hydroelectric projects like Baglihar in Jammu and Kashmir, jihadi
organisations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba/Jamaat-ud-Dawa have started blaming India for the growing shortage of
water. Apart from inflaming public opinion against India, this propaganda helps to blunt the resentment Sindh
and Balochistan have traditionally had — as the lowest riparians in the Indus river basin — against West
Punjab for drawing more than its fair share of the water flowing through the provinces.
Pakistan blames India, saying it is withholding millions of cubic feet of water upstream on the Chenab in
Indian-administered Kashmir and storing it in the massive Baglihar dam in order to produce hydro-electricity.
Its Indian neighbour, Pakistan declares, is in breach of a 1960 treaty designed to administer water use in the
region. After initial talks to try and resolve the issue, the matter has been put on hold since the Mumbai attacks
last November in which 165 people were killed, fuelling tensions between the two quarrelsome neighbours.
How did this accusation come about? The answer is that some studies reportedly indicate a reduction in the
flows in the western rivers, and it seems to be readily assumed that if the flows show a reduction, the upper
riparian must have reduced them. India would say that if there are reductions in flows, they cannot forthwith be
attributed to Indian action.
Also, Pakistan continues to be uncomfortable about Indian projects on the western rivers despite the many
stringent safeguards provided by the Treaty to protect Pakistan against certain perceived dangers. Pakistan
wants the Treaty to give the exclusive use of the western rivers with no provision whatever for even limited use
by India; but such a Treaty might not have been signed by India. But, what with the permissive and restrictive
provisions in the Treaty, and the density of technical detail in it, the situation in the Permanent Indus
Commission (PIC) has turned adverse, leading to a constant tug of war, instead of constructive cooperation.
Also Pakistan is worried about the number of projects that India is planning on the western rivers. This is
because, even with strict compliance with the provisions of the Treaty in each case, India might, taking all the
projects together, acquire a measure of control over the waters of the western rivers and might potentially be
able to inflict harm on Pakistan.
Pakistan believes that India might be planning a hundred projects. There seems to be no basis for that number.
It is more likely that India might have in mind some thirty projects or so. It is not clear whether all those
projects will in fact be undertaken, but assuming that they are, it is necessary to consider whether all of them
will together give India a greater degree of control; enable large storage; make it possible for India to withhold
water from Pakistan, or release stored waters and flood Pakistan. India claims that most of these will be small
projects, which are run-of-the-river projects. Given the restrictive provisions of the Treaty, there is hardly any
scope either for the retention of waters to the detriment of the lower riparian or for flooding the lower riparian;
and that assuming that India wants to harm Pakistan it can do so only by openly violating the Treaty and by first
harming itself, its own people, and its own projects (built at great cost).
Islamabad should also not doubt India’s plan to put up projects that do not impede water flows on the western
rivers, because Article III of the IWT allows it the use of western river waters for domestic, non-consumptive
and agriculture purposes, besides the generation of electricity.
Though the treaty has a mechanism to ensure compliance with the stipulated partitioning of rivers, a major
weakness from Pakistan’s standpoint is that it does not compel or require India to do anything on its side for the
optimum development of what is, after all, an integrated water system. Inflows to Pakistan depend not just on
rainfall and snowmelt in India and China (the uppermost eastern riparian) but also on the health of tributaries,
streams, nullahs and acquifers as well as groundwater, soil and forest management practices. This is a classic
externality problem. Costs incurred by the upper riparian on responsible watershed management will produce
disproportionate benefits for the lower riparian, hence they are not incurred.
Under the treaty, India is allowed to store 3.6 million acreage feet (MAF) of water of the western rivers, but it
has not built any such facility so far, allowing unimpeded flows into Pakistan. Since the water level in the
Chenab varies wildly during winter and summer, a better strategy would be for both countries to build a joint
storage project which would serve the farmers of both countries during the lean periods, some experts aver.
Pakistan might consider the following two points as harmful.
• The initial filling of the Baglihar reservoir, and
• The planned diversion of Kishenganga waters
The first was a very minor and relatively innocuous matter which was blown up into a huge controversy. The
issue has been closed at the last meeting of the PIC. The Kishenganga diversion, which Pakistan considers to be
a violation of the Treaty and India holds to be specifically permitted by the Treaty, is going to the Court of
Arbitration.
The fact that river flows from India to Pakistan have slowly declined is borne out by data on both sides. Above
Merala on the Chenab, for example, the average monthly flows for September have nearly halved between
1999 and 2009. India claims that this is because of reduced rainfall and snowmelt. Pakistan refutes, preferring
to link observable reductions in flows to hydroelectric projects on the Indian side. That is why, in the run-up to
the February 25 meeting of the Indian and Pakistani Foreign Secretaries, Islamabad has gone out of its way to
project water as the most important topic it intends to raise.
The reality of the partition
Though inter-provincial disputes over water sharing were a fact of life in this region before 1947, the partition
of the subcontinent introduced a further complexity. It was easy for Radcliffe to draw a line on a map and
divide up the land of British India but people and water were harder to partition. The rupture to the region’s
hydrological system proved to be traumatic. The rivers which irrigated the new nation all had their origins in
India. But as an upper riparian locked in a politically adversarial relationship with Pakistan, the Indian side had
little or no incentive to look at the Indus basin as an integrated water system. The early years of independence
saw bitter disputes as India treated the waters of the Indus’s five tributaries — Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and
Sutlej — as its own. Geography and terrain meant the Indus itself could not be harnessed on the Indian side of
Jammu and Kashmir but intermittent, small-scale, diversions on the tributaries generated considerable tension
with Pakistan. In 1960, the two countries sought to put an end to this tension by signing the Indus Water Treaty
(IWT) with the World Bank’s mediation.
The IWT partitioned the six rivers of the Indus watershed on a crudely longitudinal basis. India was given
exclusive use of the waters of the three eastern tributaries, the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, and the right to “non-
consumptive” use of the western rivers, namely the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. Under the IWT, India
renounced its right to block or divert the flows of the ‘western’ rivers and agreed to confine itself to run-of-the-
river hydroelectric projects and the drawing of irrigation water for a specified acreage of farm land. This
partitioning was irrational from an ecological standpoint and led to both sides incurring considerable expense as
they were forced to develop canal infrastructure drawing on “their” allocated rivers to compensate for the non-
use of the other side’s rivers despite that water flowing through their own territory.
Pakistani officials keep accusing India of violating the 1960 treaty on the division of the Indus waters. The
Indian side, of course, denies this, and there is, in any case, a system of international mediation built into the
IWT for binding international arbitration if the two countries cannot resolve a water-related dispute. Pakistan
invoked this mechanism for Baglihar in 2005, though the arbitrator ruled in favour of the project subject to
certain modifications. An earlier dispute over the Salal project was resolved in the 1970s by the two Foreign
Secretaries.
Many of the disputes that seem to be driven by fears of water scarcity are actually a reflection of another kind
of scarcity: electricity. Pakistan opposes the Indian Kishenganga hydel project on the Jhelum, for example,
because it will interfere with its proposed Neelum-Jhelum power plant. But if the two countries could build
trust in one another, there is no reason why they cannot agree on energy swaps that could do away with the
need to duplicate power projects, especially those which restrict the flow of water. Today, given the way
terrorism has eroded the Indian political system’s capacity and willingness to do business with Pakistan, such
ideas seem hopelessly utopian. But they do offer a glimpse of the kind of future that might be possible should
the terrorist menace end. Rather than refusing to talk water, India should show Pakistan how the keys to ending
its aquatic insecurities lie in its own hands.
In fact, Islamabad’s desire to bring the water issue on the table on the eve of this week’s foreign secretary talks
is a change from its stand in 2002, when the “Pakistan Water Sector Strategy” argued for thwarting any
“attempt by India” to scrap the treaty. It anticipated an adverse impact on the river water flows if the treaty was
scrapped and argued for building storage capacities to meet requirements in times of shortages, which Pakistan
has failed to do adequately.
Silting at dams
Pakistan’s problems are compounded by silting at the Tarbela and Mangla dams, with an internal official
assessment admitting that it has lost 32 per cent of its storage capacity due to the problem.
While framing the IWT, the irrigable area of India and Pakistan was assessed at 26 million acres and 39 million
acres respectively, while the waters available to them are 32.8 MAF and 135.6 MAF respectively. This means
that only about 1.26 feet of water is available to India for its agriculture on eastern rivers, while about 3.5 feet
of water is available to Pakistan for its agriculture.
Unused water
Pakistan has a large surplus of unused water. Its documents show about 30 MAF as “available surplus” with a
very high escapage to the sea. Pakistan’s irrigation efficiency is also understood to be low, at an estimated 40
per cent. Virtually all of the municipal and industrial wastewater is returned to the rivers, nullahs and streams
untreated, which results in deterioration of water quality.
The Pakistan document also suggests that canal capacities are not sufficient to provide the share of each
province as per their allocation. The inefficient system aggravates the problems.
As a result of the IWT, Pakistan was assisted by India financially (£62.06 million) and by the IBRD fund to
build replacement works, including link canals for transferring waters of the western rivers to eastern rivers.
This network of link canals could be used by Pakistan to properly distribute the water.
Pakistan believes that the diversion of Neelum waters is not allowed under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, as it
will cause a 27 per cent water deficit, when the project is completed. The reduced water flow in the Neelum
would not yield the required results of the proposed 1.6 billion dollars Neelum-Jehlum hydropower project that
has been designed to generate 969 MW of electricity. It said that India has almost completed a 22-kilometre
long tunnel to divert Kishanganga waters to Wullar Lake in Jammu and Kashmir.
President Obama’s Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke has said Washington is in
consultations with India and Pakistan to help both countries resolve water disputes between them.
In an interview with a private television channel, Holbrooke termed Pakistan’s water crisis as the second most
worry for that country after its sagging economy. “Pakistan’s water crisis is the second most dangerous crisis
after its economic turmoil,” The Daily Times quoted Holbrooke, as saying.
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), inked between India and Pakistan in 1960, provides appointment of a neutral
expert by the World Bank as a last option to resolve water related issues between both the countries.
Unless both countries can arrive at a compromise where the dispute is concerned, analysts fear that this
problem might lead to a terrible Indo – Pakistan war.
*****
Babhali Barrage row and rift between Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra
Friday, August 6th, 2010
Shanthi Rajagopal
The contentious Babhali Barrage issue, now at the centre of a controversy between Maharashtra and Andhra
Pradesh, is scheduled to come up for further hearing before the Supreme Court in August 2010. Though the
Maharashtra government was permitted by the apex court in April 2007 to go ahead with the construction of the
Babhali Barrage, it has been restrained from installing 13 gates on it till further orders.
Maharashtra believes that they are strictly honouring the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT) award of
1975 and following the apex court directives by not impounding the water.
The Controversy
The Babhali Barrage is being constructed on the Godavari, around 80 km from Nanded, the home district of
Chief Minister Ashok Chavan of Maharashtra. Situated within the Maharashtra boundary, the barrage is seven
kilometres upstream from the state border at the confluence of the Godavari and Manjra rivers. With a storage
capacity of 2.75 million cubic feet, the barrage will cater to the drinking water requirements of 58 surrounding
villages and irrigate 7,995 hectares of agricultural land. The total cost of the barrage (as per revised estimates)
would be around Rs.2.21 billion and the state has already spent Rs.1.6 billion on the project.
Chavan said 80 percent of the work on the barrage is almost complete, including the approach roads on both
sides of the project. Minor works like electrification for operating the barrage gates, constructing a generator
room and inspection posts are currently under way.
Andhra Pradesh has claimed that the Babhali Barrage is being constructed within the backwaters of the
Pochampad Dam in the Telangana region. It says Maharashtra is violating the GWDT agreement of October
1975, and challenged the matter in the Supreme Court.
It apprehends that the barrage would cut off water supply to the Pochampad Dam, adding to the woes of the
farmers and create serious drinking water supply problems in the Telangana region.
Rejecting this strongly, the Maharashtra government has said that the barrage is being built seven kilometres
upstream from the state border and within the state’s territory. They claim that they have prepared the schemes
within the limits of the (water) share allotted by GWDT.
Chavan says that the state would not deprive Andhra Pradesh of even a drop of its due water share.
Arrest of TDP Chief
Andhra Pradesh’s opposition Telugu Desam Party (TDP) chief N. Chandrababu Naidu, along with 74
supporters, in July 2010 entered Dharmabad town in Nanded district to examine the site of the Babhali Barrage
over the Godavari river and ascertain whether Maharashtra was grabbing more than its share of water. They
were arrested since they flouted prohibitory orders and remanded to judicial custody till July 26.
Even as they were being shifted from Dharmabad to Aurangabad, the Maharashtra government suddenly
decided to drop all charges against Naidu and 65 others.
Instead of being taken to jail, they were driven straight to Chikhalthna Airport near Aurangabad and sent back
to Hyderabad in a chartered Indian Airlines aircraft.
In the past few days, all political parties have described the TDP agitation as “a political stunt” to gain mileage
in the July 27 by-elections in Telangana.
July 29, 2010
In order to discuss the row over the Babhali dam project between the riverine states, Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh had called a meeting of chief ministers of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra on Aug 2, 2010. The meeting
was aimed at addressing apprehensions among political parties in Andhra Pradesh, on Maharashtra not sticking
to its commitment about the project following Supreme Court directions. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister K.
Rosaiah had led an all-party delegation to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and urged him to direct the
Maharashtra government to dismantle the gates installed at the Babhali barrage and take necessary action to put
an end to the dispute.
The delegation, which had representatives from all registered political parties in Andhra Pradesh, also urged the
prime minister to call a meeting of the chief ministers of the two states to resolve the issue of Babhali barrage
and 13 other barrages built on Godavari river, which flows through both states.
Political parties in Andhra Pradesh have accused Maharashtra of carrying out illegal construction on the
Babhali barrage against a Supreme Court order, but Maharashtra denies it.
Aug 3, 2010
Chandrabau Naidu, the opposition leader told reporters that Rosaiah compromised the state’s interests during
the meeting to save his “chair”. He pointed out that Maharashtra had already violated the Supreme Court’s
interim order in the case by going ahead with the Babhali barrage across the Godavari. The Telugu Desam
Party (TDP) chief, who along with other party leaders was arrested by Maharashtra police recently for
marching towards Babhali, wanted Rosaiah to reveal the details of the meeting.
Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister K. Rosaiah denied that he compromised the interests of the state on the Babhali
barrage dispute during a meeting with his Maharashtra counterpart in the presence of Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh. Addressing a news conference, he said Andhra Pradesh would continue to pursue the
contempt of court case filed in the Supreme Court against Maharashtra for not abiding by its interim order.
He also claimed that at the same time the two states would continue their efforts to find a mutually acceptable
solution to the problem. The chief minister said it was the opinion of the central government that both the states
should abide by the Supreme Court order on the dispute.
Praja Rajyam Party (PRP) chief K. Chiranjeevi also said the meeting was not satisfactory. He too urged
Rosaiah to call an all-party meeting and reveal the details of his discussions in Delhi. Andhra Pradesh argues
that Babhali dam will deprive the state of its rightful share of Godavari waters.
Aug 5th 2010
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had convened a meeting of chief ministers of Andhra Pradesh and
Maharashtra over the Babhali barrage row and called upon the two riverine States to abide by the Supreme
Court’s interim order.
The Lok Sabha was adjourned on Aug 4th 2010 for half-an-hour following protests by the members of the
Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the Shiva Sena over the Babhali dam dispute over the Godavari river. As the
house convened at 11 a.m on 4.08.2010, the TDP members came near Speaker Meira Kumar’s podium shouting
slogans over the issue. The enraged Shiv Sena members also started the protest, forcing the speaker to adjourn
the house till 11.30 a.m.
*****
North Korea and South Korea – The stand off and fall outs
Friday, July 23rd, 2010
Preethika
North Korea
Official name: Chosŏn Minjujuŭi In’min Konghwaguk (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea)
Form of government: Unitary single-party republic with one legislative house (Supreme People’s Assembly
[687])
Head of state and government: Supreme Leader/Chairman of the National Defense Commission
Capital: P’yŏngyang
Official language: Korean
Official religion: none
Monetary unit: ( North Korean) won (W)
Population estimate (2009): 24,162,000
Total area (sq mi): 47,399
Total area (sq km): 122,762
Ethnically, the population is almost completely Korean. Language: Korean (official). Religions: Ch’ŏndogyo,
traditional beliefs, Christianity, Buddhism. Foreign missionaries were expelled during World War II.
North Korea’s land area largely consists of mountain ranges and uplands; its highest peak is Mount Paektu
(9,022 ft [2,750 m]). North Korea has a centrally planned economy based on heavy industry (iron and steel,
machinery, chemicals, and textiles) and agriculture. Cooperative farms raise crops such as rice, corn, barley,
and vegetables. The country is rich in mineral resources, including coal, iron ore, and magnesite.
It is a republic with one legislature; the head of state and government is the supreme leader and chairman of the
National Defense Commission. After the Japanese were defeated in World War II, the Soviet Union occupied
Korea north of latitude 38° N; there the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was established as a
communist state in 1948. Seeking to unify the peninsula by force, it launched an invasion of South Korea in
1950, initiating the Korean War. UN troops intervened on the side of South Korea, and Chinese soldiers
reinforced the North Korean army in the war, which ended with an armistice in 1953. Led by Kim Il-sung,
North Korea became one of the most harshly regimented societies in the world, with a state-owned economy
that failed to produce adequate supplies of food and consumer goods for its citizens. Under his son and
successor, Kim Jong II, the country endured periods of severe food shortages from the late 1990s that caused
widespread famine. Hopes that North Korea was seeking to end its long isolation—notably through meetings
between Kim and the leaders of South Korea (2000) and Japan (2002)—have been tempered by concerns over
its nuclear weapons program.
South Korea
Official name: Taehan Min’guk (Republic of Korea)
Form of government: Unitary multiparty republic with one legislative house (National Assembly [299]) Head
of state and government: President assisted by Prime Minister
Capital: Seoul
Official language: Korean
Official religion: none
Monetary unit: (South Korean) won (W)
Population estimate (2009): 48,333,000
Total area: (sq mi) 38,486 Total area (sq km) 99,678
South Korea is west of Japan and includes Cheju Island, located about 60 mi (97 km) south of the peninsula.
The population is almost entirely ethnically Korean. Most of South Korea’s land area consists of mountains and
uplands; its highest peak is Mount Halla (6,398 ft [1,950 m]) on Cheju Island. The densely populated lowlands
are heavily cultivated for wet rice. The Naktong, Kŭm, and Han are the principal rivers. The economy is based
largely on services, manufacturing (including petrochemicals, electronic goods, and steel), and high-technology
industries.
South Korea is a republic with one legislative house; its head of state and government is the president, assisted
by the prime minister. The Republic of Korea was established in 1948 in the portion of the Korean peninsula
south of latitude 38° N, which had been occupied by the U.S. after World War II. In 1950 North Korean troops
invaded South Korea, precipitating the Korean War. UN forces intervened on the side of South Korea, while
Chinese troops backed North Korea; the war ended with an armistice in 1953. The devastated country was
rebuilt with U.S. aid, and South Korea prospered in the postwar era, transforming itself from an agrarian
economy to one that was industrial and highly export-oriented. It experienced an economic downturn beginning
in the mid-1990s that affected many countries in the area.
Efforts at reconciliation between North and South Korea, including the first-ever summit between their leaders
(2000) and reunions of families from both countries, were accompanied by periods of continuing tension.
The Recent Conflict
North Korea (officially the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or DPRK) has been accused by South
Korea (officially the Republic of Korea or ROK) of initiating a torpedo attack that sank the South Korean
Cheonan corvette navy warship on March 26, 2010. Forty-six sailors lost their lives in the maritime disaster
near the Northern Limit Line (NLL), a disputed maritime demarcation line in the Yellow Sea between North
Korea and South Korean. North Korea has denied these allegations.
South Korea’s Response to the Yellow Sea Incident
South Korean President Lee Myung Bak on March 23, 2010 stated that henceforth, the Republic of Korea
would not tolerate any provocative act by the North and will maintain a principle of proactive deterrence. He
also proclaimed that if their territorial waters, air space or territory are militarily violated, they would
immediately exercise their right of self-defense.
Following the Cheonan warship incident, South Korea soon began blasting radio and loudspeaker broadcasts
across the North Korean border. It also reduced trade with North Korea and began denying North Korean cargo
ships permission to pass through South Korean waters.
North Korea’s Response to the Yellow Sea Incident
On May 25 2010, North Korean officials stated that it would end diplomatic relations with South Korea over
accusations of the Cheonan warship sinking.
The North Korea government has released a statement that it would sever ties with South Korea until 2013,
when the South Korea President Lee Myung Bak leaves office. Severed diplomatic relations have escalated to
the point where ships and airliners from South Korea are also not allowed in North Korea territory.
According to the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), North Korea also plans to expel South Korea
government officials working in the northern town of Kaesong at a joint industrial park that contains
archaeological findings of human inhabitants on the peninsula durng the Neolithic-era.
The industrial estate, in which South Korean firms employ cheap North Korean labor, is an important source of
revenue for the Pyongyang leadership.
North Korea earlier said if the South continued to cross into its side of the disputed sea border — the scene of
deadly clashes in the past — the North would “put into force practical military measures to defend its waters.”
The North referred to the South’s government as “military gangsters, seized by fever for a war”.
Korean War or Roots of the North Korea and South Korea Tensions
Long known as the forgotten war, sandwiched between the definitive victory of World War II and the trauma of
Vietnam, the Korean conflict was honored with its own memorial on the National Mall in 1995.
The sinking of the Cheonan warship is one of South Korea’s worst military disasters since the end of the
Korean War. The Korean War started on June 25, 1950 and ended with an armistice on July 27, 1953.
Sometimes referred to as the “The Forgotten War” in the U.S., it began when a political division arose in Korea
at the end of the Pacific War (also called the Asia-Pacific War), which refers to those parts of World War II that
occurred in the Pacific Ocean.
Prior to the end of World War II, the whole of the Korean peninsula was ruled by Japan since 1905. When the
Japanese surrendered rule of the peninsula in 1945, the U.S. government divided it at the 38th Parallel. Soviet
Union troops occupied the northern 38th and U.S. troops occupied the southern 38th. In 1948, the North
established a Communist government which further politicized the border between the two Koreas.
Where South Korea meets North Korea there exists a securely guarded border. On June 25, 1950, North Korea
invaded South Korea. It was one of the earliest armed conflicts of the Cold War. The United Nations and the
U.S. aided South Korea. China and the Soviets aided North Korea. The Korean War ended with an armistice
once the threat of a U.S.-Soviet nuclear war escalated. As recent as 1999 and 2002, however, there have been
military encounters between the Koreas. According to an AP report, the U.S. still has 28,500 troops in South
Korea.
International Relations Effort in the Koreas
Recently, a team of international investigators issued a fact-finding report that concluded that the Cheonan
warship was torpedoed by a North Korean submarine. A North Korea official stated through the KCNA that the
investigation was “unilateral and not objective.” News agencies report that U.S. President Barack Obama
supports South Korea’s stated intent to address the issue before the United Nations Security Council.
The U.N. has backed sanctions against North Korea on prior nuclear and missile tests. On May 24, 2010, the
U.N. Secretary-General Bank Ki-moon stated that he expects the U.N. Security Council to take action against
North Korea. China has urged peace and stability on the Korean peninsula since the start of the warship
conflict.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that Canada has imposed sanctions on North Korea for the
incident. Canada’s Prime Minister Harper stated that Canada has condemned the reckless North Korean regime
for this egregious violation of international law and its blatant disregard of its international obligations.
It is notable that both North Korea and South Korea have separate unification movements. In North Korea there
is the Committee for Peaceful Reunification. In South Korea there is a Unification Ministry.
July 22nd 2010
Robert Gates, U.S. secretary of defense states that it is stunning how little had changed in the North, while
South Korea has continued to grow and prosper.
Tensions have increased in recent months. The U.S. and South Korea will soon begin joint military exercises.
And, in Seoul, the two Americans held security talks with their South Korean counterparts and announced new
sanctions against the North, which the U.S. says is pressing ahead with its nuclear weapons program.
U.S. secretary of state Hilary Clinton says that these measures are not directed at the people of North Korea,
who, she says have suffered too long due to the misguided and maligned priorities of their government. They
are directed at the destabilizing, illicit, and provocative policies pursued by that government.
The U.N. Security Council voted to defend the South with a multinational force. And President Harry Truman,
without asking Congress to declare war, committed U.S. soldiers to what is called a police action. Poorly
trained and equipped American troops rushed to the peninsula from occupation duty in Japan, where they were
first quickly pushed deep into the South by the North Koreans. Months later, the tide turned with an amphibious
landing at Inchon, and the 15-nation U.N. force led by American General Douglas MacArthur routed the
Northern armies almost to the Yalu River. That, in turn, drew in massive armies of Communist Chinese, who
sent the allied forces into a hasty winter retreat. General MacArthur called for carrying the fight into China, but
was overruled and fired for insubordination by President Truman, in one of the great tests in American history
of civilian control of the military.
The war then settled into a stalemate along the 38th Parallel and ended in an armistice on July 27, 1953, but
never in a formal peace treaty. For years, the official American combat death toll was set at some 56,000. But,
in 2000, the military revised the actual combat toll to 37,000. Hundreds of thousands of South and North
Koreans, as well as Chinese troops, died in the conflict.
In a meeting held in June 2010 diplomats said the March 26 sinking of the warship Cheonan that killed 46
South Korean sailors featured prominently at a meeting in Hanoi of Southeast Asian foreign ministers and their
counterparts from China, South Korea and Japan on Wednesday.
South Korea blames the torpedoing of the ship on the communist North, which accuses Seoul of fabricating the
incident.
Seoul and Washington have said the North must admit responsibility for the sinking before they would return to
six-way talks on North Korea’s nuclear programme.
A Thai foreign ministry spokesman said ASEAN decided to adopt the stance of the United Nations, which
condemned the sinking but in deference to China did not cite North Korea by name.
China, the closest North Korea has to an ally, has avoided taking a firm stand on who was responsible for
destroying the Cheonan, which an international panel has blamed on a North Korean torpedo fired from a mini-
submarine.
Russia seeks restraint
Russia, which like China and the United States holds a veto in the Security Council, urged restraint. China, the
North’s only major ally and which effectively bankrolls its economy, has studiously tried to keep out of the
fray, urging calm and refusing to voice support for the international report on the Cheonan sinking.
Furious Rhetoric
Both sides have stepped up their rhetoric over the Cheonan incident, one of their deadliest since the 1950-53
Korean War.
The North accused South Korea’s government of fabricating the issue, partly to help the ruling party in next
week’s local elections — important to cement President Lee’s power in the second half of his single five-year
term.
Analysts say the main risk is that small skirmishes along the heavily armed border could turn into broader
conflict.
The U.S.-led military command monitoring the cease-fire on the Korean peninsula confronted North Korea on
23.07.2010 about the deadly sinking of a South Korean warship, calling it a violation of the 1953 armistice.
Colonels from the U.N. Command, who met at the border with counterparts from Pyongyang’s Korean
People’s Army, reminded North Korea of the U.N. Security Council order to honour the truce. Officers also
proposed a joint task force to discuss the “armistice violations,” the military commission said in a statement.
The 100-minute talks, which took place at the “truce village” of Panmunjom inside the Demilitarized Zone
dividing the two Koreas, were the second round of talks since the Cheonan went down off the Koreas’ west
coast on March 26, 2010 killing 46 South Korean sailors.
North Korea also rejected South Korean demands to apologise for the sinking of the Cheonan.
Sanctions
Following are the major international sanctions in force against North Korea for its nuclear and ballistic missile
activities and suspected human rights violations.
UN Security Council Resolution 1874
The resolution of June 2009 allows inspection of all cargo to and from the Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, or DPRK, along with vessels containing suspicious cargo. The resolution bans provision of fuel or
supplies, or services for North Korean vessels suspected to be carrying banned items. Suspicious vessels are
subject to inspection at sea. Eight North Korean organisations including its General Bureau of Atomic Energy,
which oversees its main nuclear complex and trading firms, are blacklisted by a UN sanctions committee under
resolution 1874. The blacklist includes five North Korean individuals believed to be involved in nuclear or
missile production.
UN Security Council Resolution 1718
This resolution of October 2006 imposes arms and financial sanctions on North Korea in response to its first
nuclear test three months after firing its longest range Taepodong-2 ballistic missile. The sanction also bans the
sale of luxury goods to the North.
UN Security Council Resolution 1695
This resolution of July 2006, also after the launch of Taepodong-2, bans trading of material, technology and
financial resources that could be used in any programme of weapons of mass destruction in North Korea.
US Sanctions
The US treasury department rules ban transactions by US firms with North Korean banks and trading firms for
their role in arms dealing and weapons proliferation, including Amroggang Development Bank, Tanchon
Commercial Bank, Korea Hyoksin Trading Corp and Ryonbong General Corp.
Imports of goods made in North Korea require prior approval. Provisions of the US Patriot Act and the code on
money laundering have been applied to North Korea.
In 2003 President George Bush launched the “proliferation security initiative”, an informal multilateral
grouping that aims to stop trafficking of weapons of mass destruction.
Bush removed North Korea from the list of countries alleged to be state sponsors of terrorism and from the US
Trading with the Enemies Act in October 2008 as an inducement to keep Pyongyang engaged in nuclear
diplomacy. In February, Barack Obama decided not to reinstate North Korea to that list, which would deny
Pyongyang access to loans and other funds from international financial organisations. Some US lawmakers say
North Korea’s nuclear co-operation with Syria, which is on the list, and suspected arms exports to Hezbollah
and Hamas are sufficient grounds to reinstate Pyongyang.
On 21.07.2010, Clinton unveiled new sanctions designed to deny luxury goods to North Korean elites and
strangle funding for Pyongyang’s nuclear programme. The north says it will not return to nuclear negotiations
unless the sanctions are lifted.
The U.S. plan to impose new financial sanctions on North Korea will focus on cracking down on its overseas
arms sales and the supply of luxury goods to its leadership, according to South Korean intelligence sources, on
23.07.2010.
Washington is reportedly taking steps to freeze Pyongyang’s secret overseas bank accounts used to deposit
money from arms transactions, counterfeiting, money laundering and drug trafficking.
The United States has identified about 200 bank accounts with links to North Korea and is expected to freeze
some 100 of those suspected of being used for weapons exports and other illicit purposes banned under U.N.
resolutions, Yonhap News reported 23.07.2010.
Japanese Sanctions
These were renewed in April, 2010 for a year and ban imports of North Korean goods, as well as all exports to
the country, and prohibit port calls by North Korean vessels. Japan, in principle, bans North Korean nationals
entering the country, though this does not apply to re-entry by North Korean residents of Japan. Cash sums of
more than 300,000 yen carried to North Korea must be reported to authorities, while remittances of over 10m
yen must be declared.
North Korea threatens ‘physical response’ to US military exercises
North Korea on 23.07.2010 threatened a “physical response” to planned military exercises by the US and South
Korea in the weekend, as tensions on the Korean peninsula dominated a regional security forum in Hanoi.
*****
Foot Ball World Cup – History, Rules and 1930 to 2010 Winners
Monday, July 12th, 2010
Thangai VS Annan
Foot Ball World Cup is formally called as FIFA World Cup. Foot Ball is also called association football or
soccer and it is a game in which two teams of 11 players, using any part of their bodies except their hands and
arms, try to maneuver the ball into the opposing team’s goal. Only the goalkeeper is permitted to handle the ball
and may do so only within the penalty area surrounding the goal. The team that scores more goals wins.
The first competition for the cup was organized in 1930 by the Fédération Internationale de Football
Association (FIFA) and was won by Uruguay. Held every four years since that time, except during World War
II, the competition consists of international sectional tournaments leading to a final elimination event made up
of 32 national teams. Unlike Olympic football, World Cup teams are not limited to players of a certain age or
amateur status, so the competition serves more nearly as a contest between the world’s best players. Referees
are selected from lists that are submitted by all the national associations.
The trophy cup awarded from 1930 to 1970 was the Jules Rimet Trophy, named for the Frenchman who
proposed the tournament. This cup was permanently awarded in 1970 to then three-time winner Brazil (1958,
1962, and 1970), and a new trophy called the FIFA World Cup was put up for competition. Many other sports
have organized “World Cup” competitions.
History – The early years
Modern football originated in Britain in the 19th century. Since before medieval times, “folk football” games
had been played in towns and villages according to local customs and with a minimum of rules.
Industrialization and urbanization, which reduced the amount of leisure time and space available to the working
class, combined with a history of legal prohibitions against particularly violent and destructive forms of folk
football to undermine the game’s status from the early 19th century onward. However, football was taken up as
a winter game between residence houses at public (independent) schools such as Winchester, Charterhouse, and
Eton. Each school had its own rules; some allowed limited handling of the ball and others did not. The variance
in rules made it difficult for public schoolboys entering university to continue playing except with former
schoolmates. As early as 1843 an attempt to standardize and codify the rules of play was made at the University
of Cambridge, whose students joined most public schools in 1848 in adopting these “Cambridge rules,” which
were further spread by Cambridge graduates who formed football clubs. In 1863 a series of meetings involving
clubs from metropolitan London and surrounding counties produced the printed rules of football, which
prohibited the carrying of the ball. Thus the “handling” game of rugby remained outside the newly formed
Football Association (FA). Indeed, by 1870, all handling of the ball except by the goalkeeper was prohibited by
the FA.
The new rules were not universally accepted in Britain, however; many clubs retained their own rules,
especially in and around Sheffield. Although this northern English city was the home of the first provincial club
to join the FA, in 1867 it also gave birth to the Sheffield Football Association, the forerunner of later county
associations. Sheffield and London clubs played two matches against each other in 1866, and a year later a
match pitting a club from Middlesex against one from Kent and Surrey was played under the revised rules. In
1871 15 FA clubs accepted an invitation to enter a cup competition and to contribute to the purchase of a
trophy. By 1877, the associations of Great Britain had agreed upon a uniform code, 43 clubs were in
competition, and the London clubs’ initial dominance had diminished.
International organization
By the early 20th century, football had spread across Europe, but it was in need of international organization. A
solution was found in 1904, when representatives from the football associations of Belgium, Denmark, France,
The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland founded the Fédération Internationale de Football
Association (FIFA).
Although Englishman Daniel Woolfall was elected FIFA president in 1906 and all of the home nations
(England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales) were admitted as members by 1911, British football associations were
disdainful of the new body. FIFA members accepted British control over the rules of football via the
International Board, which had been established by the home nations in 1882. Nevertheless, in 1920 the British
associations resigned their FIFA memberships after failing to persuade other members that Germany, Austria,
and Hungary should be expelled following World War I. The British associations rejoined FIFA in 1924 but
soon after insisted upon a very rigid definition of amateurism, notably for Olympic football. Other nations
again failed to follow their lead, and the British resigned once more in 1928, remaining outside FIFA until
1946. When FIFA established the World Cup championship, British insouciance toward the international game
continued. Without membership in FIFA, the British national teams were not invited to the first three
competitions (1930, 1934, and 1938). For the next competition, held in 1950, FIFA ruled that the two best
finishers in the British home nations tournament would qualify for World Cup play; England won, but Scotland
(which finished second) chose not to compete for the World Cup.
Despite sometimes fractious international relations, football continued to rise in popularity. It made its official
Olympic debut at the London Games in 1908, and it has since been played in each of the Summer Games
(except for the 1932 Games in Los Angeles). FIFA also grew steadily—especially in the latter half of the 20th
century, when it strengthened its standing as the game’s global authority and regulator of competition. Guinea
became FIFA’s 100th member in 1961; at the turn of the 21st century, more than 200 nations were registered
FIFA members, which is more than the number of countries that belong to the United Nations.
The World Cup finals remain football’s premier tournament, but other important tournaments have emerged
under FIFA guidance. Two different tournaments for young players began in 1977 and 1985, and these became,
respectively, the World Youth Championship (for those 20 years old and younger) and the Under-17 World
Championship. Futsal, the world indoor, five-a-side championship, started in 1989, and two years later the first
women’s World Cup was played in China. In 1992 FIFA opened the Olympic football tournament to players
aged under 23 years, and four years later the first women’s Olympic football tournament was held. The World
Club Championship debuted in Brazil in 2000. The Under-19 Women’s World Championship was inaugurated
in 2002.
FIFA membership is open to all national associations. They must accept FIFA’s authority, observe the laws of
football, and possess a suitable football infrastructure (i.e., facilities and internal organization). FIFA statutes
require members to form continental confederations. The first of these, the Confederación Sudamericana de
Fútbol (commonly known as CONMEBOL), was founded in South America in 1916. In 1954 the Union of
European Football Associations (UEFA) and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) were established.
Africa’s governing body, the Confédération Africaine de Football (CAF), was founded in 1957. The
Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) followed four
years later. The Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) appeared in 1966. These confederations may organize
their own club, international, and youth tournaments, elect representatives to FIFA’s Executive Committee, and
promote football in their specific continents as they see fit. In turn, all football players, agents, leagues, national
associations, and confederations must recognize the authority of FIFA’s Arbitration Tribunal for Football,
which effectively functions as football’s supreme court in serious disputes.
Play of the game
The rules of football regarding equipment, field of play, conduct of participants, and settling of results are built
around 17 laws. The International Football Association Board, consisting of delegates from FIFA and the four
football associations from the United Kingdom, is empowered to amend the laws.
Equipment and field of play
The object of football is to maneuver the ball into the opposing team’s goal, using any part of the body except
the hands and arms. The side scoring more goals wins. The ball is round, covered with leather or some other
suitable material, and inflated; it must be 27–27.5 inches (68–70 cm) in circumference and 14.5–16 ounces
(410–450 grams) in weight. A game lasts 90 minutes and is divided into halves; the halftime interval lasts 15
minutes, during which the teams change ends. Additional time may be added by the referee to compensate for
stoppages in play (for example, player injuries). If neither side wins, and if a victor must be established, “extra-
time” is played, and then, if required, a series of penalty kicks may be taken.
The penalty area, a rectangular area in front of the goal, is 44 yards (40.2 metres) wide and extends 18 yards
(16.5 metres) into the field. The goal is a frame, backed by a net, measuring 8 yards (7.3 metres) wide and 8
feet (2.4 metres) high. The playing field (pitch) should be 100–130 yards (90–120 metres) long and 50–100
yards (45–90 metres) wide; for international matches, it must be 110–120 yards long and 70–80 yards wide.
Women, children, and mature players may play a shorter game on a smaller field. The game is controlled by a
referee, who is also the timekeeper, and two assistants who patrol the touchlines, or sidelines, signaling when
the ball goes out of play and when players are offside.
Players wear jerseys with numbers, shorts, and socks that designate the team for whom they are playing. Shoes
and shin guards must be worn. The two teams must wear identifiably different uniforms, and goalkeepers must
be distinguishable from all players and match officials.
Fouls
Free kicks are awarded for fouls or violations of rules; when a free kick is taken, all players of the offending
side must be 10 yards (9 metres) from the ball. Free kicks may be either direct (from which a goal may be
scored), for more serious fouls, or indirect (from which a goal cannot be scored), for lesser violations. Penalty
kicks, introduced in 1891, are awarded for more serious fouls committed inside the area. The penalty kick is a
direct free kick awarded to the attacking side and is taken from a spot 12 yards (11 metres) from goal, with all
players other than the defending goalkeeper and the kicker outside the penalty area. Since 1970, players guilty
of a serious foul are given a yellow caution card; a second caution earns a red card and ejection from the game.
Players may also be sent off directly for particularly serious fouls, such as violent conduct.
Rules
There were few major alterations to football’s laws through the 20th century. Indeed, until the changes of the
1990s, the most significant amendment to the rules came in 1925, when the offside rule was rewritten.
Previously, an attacking player (i.e., one in the opponent’s half of the playing field) was offside if, when the
ball was “played” to him, fewer than three opposing players were between him and the goal. The rule change,
which reduced the required number of intervening players to two, was effective in promoting more goals. In
response, new defensive tactics and team formations emerged. Player substitutions were introduced in 1965;
teams have been allowed to field three substitutes since 1995.
More recent rule changes have helped increase the tempo, attacking incidents, and amount of effective play in
games. The pass-back rule now prohibits goalkeepers from handling the ball after it is kicked to them by a
teammate. “Professional fouls,” which are deliberately committed to prevent opponents from scoring, are
punished by red cards, as is tackling (taking the ball away from a player by kicking or stopping it with one’s
feet) from behind. Players are cautioned for “diving” (feigning being fouled) to win free kicks or penalties.
Time wasting has been addressed by forcing goalkeepers to clear the ball from hand within six seconds and by
having injured players removed by stretcher from the pitch. Finally, the offside rule was adjusted to allow
attackers who are level with the penultimate defender to be onside.
Interpretation of football’s rules is influenced heavily by cultural and tournament contexts. Lifting one’s feet
over waist level to play the ball is less likely to be penalized as dangerous play in Britain than in southern
Europe. The British game can be similarly lenient in punishing the tackle from behind, in contrast to the trend
in recent World Cup matches. FIFA insists that “the referee’s decision is final,” and it is reluctant to break the
flow of games to allow for video assessment on marginal decisions. However, the most significant future
amendments or reinterpretations of football’s rules may deploy more efficient technology to assist match
officials. Post-match video evidence is used now by football’s disciplinary committees, particularly to
adjudicate violent play or to evaluate performances by match officials.
Strategy and tactics
Use of the feet and (to a lesser extent) the legs to control and pass the ball is football’s most basic skill. Heading
the ball is particularly prominent when receiving long, aerial passes. Since the game’s origins, players have
displayed their individual skills by going on “solo runs” or dribbling the ball past outwitted opponents. But
football is essentially a team game based on passing between team members. The basic playing styles and skills
of individual players reflect their respective playing positions. Goalkeepers require agility and height to reach
and block the ball when opponents shoot at goal. Central defenders have to challenge the direct attacking play
of opponents; called upon to win tackles and to head the ball away from danger such as when defending corner
kicks, they are usually big and strong. Fullbacks are typically smaller but quicker, qualities required to match
speedy wing-forwards. Midfield players (also called halfs or halfbacks) operate across the middle of the field
and may have a range of qualities: powerful “ball-winners” need to be “good in the tackle” in terms of winning
or protecting the ball and energetic runners; creative “playmakers” develop scoring chances through their talent
at holding the ball and through accurate passing. Wingers tend to have good speed, some dribbling skills, and
the ability to make crossing passes that travel across the front of goal and provide scoring opportunities for
forwards. Forwards can be powerful in the air or small and penetrative with quick footwork; essentially, they
should be adept at scoring goals from any angle.
FIFA men’s World Cup winners
FIFA World Cup—men
year result
1930 Uruguay 4 Argentina 2
1934 Italy 2 Czechoslovakia 1
1938 Italy 4 Hungary 2
1950 Uruguay 2 Brazil 1
1954 West Germany 3 Hungary 2
1958 Brazil 5 Sweden 2
1962 Brazil 3 Czechoslovakia 1
1966 England 4 West Germany 2
1970 Brazil 4 Italy 1
1974 West Germany 2 The Netherlands 1
1978 Argentina 3 The Netherlands 1
1982 Italy 3 West Germany 1
1986 Argentina 3 West Germany 2
1990 West Germany 1 Argentina 0
1994 Brazil* 0 Italy 0
1998 France 3 Brazil 0
2002 Brazil 2 Germany 0
2006 Italy* 1 France 1
*Won on penalty kicks.
FIFA women’s World Cup winners
year result
1991 United States 2 Norway 1
1995 Norway 2 Germany 0
1999 United States* 0 China 0
2003 Germany 2 Sweden 1
2007 Germany 2 Brazil 0
*Won on penalty kicks.
19th World Cup football (soccer) tournament, 2010
It began on June 11, 2010, in Johannesburg as host country South Africa tied Mexico in the event’s opening
contest. Sixty-three games later, on July 11 in Soccer City Stadium in Johannesburg, a new World Cup
champion was crowned, as Spain defeated the Netherlands 1–0 in extra time. Germany finished in third place
for the second straight World Cup, beating Uruguay 3–2.
The 2010 World Cup marked the first time that the world’s most popular sporting competition was played on
the African continent. In the 2004 Fédération Internationale de Football (FIFA) balloting to determine the 2010
host country, South Africa (which had narrowly lost out to Germany for the right to host the 2006 World Cup)
was selected over bids from Morocco, Egypt, and Libya. To mark this momentous event, Britannica is pleased
to present a selection of information on the World Cup and South Africa, including a survey of the World Cup
field, a tournament schedule, an overview of the World Cup venues, sections on notable football players past
and present, a brief history of the World Cup and international football, coverage of the 2006 World Cup,
surveys of South Africa’s sporting and artistic cultures, and a timeline of significant events in the country’s
history.
2010 World Cup Venues in South Africa
2010 World Cup Venues
Bloemfontein
Stadium: Free State Stadium
Capacity: 45,000
Year completed: 1952 (renovated 2008)
Cape Town
Stadium: Cape Town Stadium
Capacity: 68,000
Year completed: 2009
Durban
Stadium: Moses Mabhida Stadium
Capacity: 70,000
Year completed: 2009
Johannesburg (Ellis Park)
Stadium: Ellis Park Stadium (Coca-Cola Park)
Capacity: 62,000
Year completed: 1982
Johannesburg (Soccer City)
Stadium: Soccer City Stadium
Capacity: 94,000
Year completed: 1989 (renovated 2009)
Nelspruit
Stadium: Mbombela Stadium
Capacity: 46,000
Year completed: 2009
Polokwane
Stadium: Peter Mokaba Stadium
Capacity: 46,000
Year completed: 2010
Port Elizabeth
Stadium: Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium
Capacity: 48,000
Year completed: 2009
Pretoria
Stadium: Loftus Versfeld Stadium
Capacity: 50,000
Year completed: 1906 (renovated 2008)
Rustenburg
Stadium: Royal Bafokeng Stadium
Capacity: 42,000
Year completed: 1999 (renovated 2010)
The following are the superstars who made an indelible impact on football history through their play in the
World Cup.
1. Franz Beckenbauer (West Germany)
2. Sir Bobby Charlton (England)
3. Johan Cruyff (Netherlands)
4. Oliver Kahn (Germany)
5. Diego Maradona (Argentina)
6. Roger Milla (Cameroon)
7. Pelé (Brazil)
8. Ronaldo (Brazil)
9. Lev Yashin (U.S.S.R.)
10. Zinedine Zidane (France)
2010 Foot Ball Final Tournament Standings:
Spain have beaten the Netherlands 1:0 in the 2010 World Cup final after 120 minutes on the Soccer City
Stadium in Johannesburg.
After a scoreless draw in the regular time, the Spanish and the Dutch went into a 30-minute extra time.
The only goal was scored by Spain‘s Iniesta in the 116th minute after Netherlands‘ back Heitinga received a
red card in the 110th minute.
Thus, Spain have become the eighth team to ever win a World Cup tournament, and the first European team to
do so outside of Europe.
Spain is also the second team to win a World Cup after winning the European Cup before that (in 2008). The
only team to have done so until now was Germany.
Winner: Spain
Runners-Up: Netherlands
Third: Germany
Fourth: Uruguay
Diego FORLAN is the winner of the adidas Golden Ball award
Thomas MUELLER is the winner of the adidas Golden Shoe award
Iker CASILLAS is the winner of the adidas Golden Glove award
FIFA Fair Play award went to Spain
Andres INIESTA has been elected Last Man of the Match
Thomas MUELLER is the winner of the Best Young Player Award.
Dream Dare Win
www.jeywin.com
*****
1972-1986
Yet another hard blow came by Taiwan when US President Richard Nixon’s made his historic visit to China in
1972, paving the way for Washington and Beijing to establish diplomatic relations seven years later. Under its
“one China” policy Beijing insisted that countries wanting to establish diplomatic relations must automatically
break off official ties with Taipei and during the 1970s other western countries and their allies followed
Washington’s lead.
To counter act this, pro-Taiwan members of the US Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, allowing for the
sale of defence equipment to Taiwan and providing vague guarantees for the island’s security. Nonetheless as
China made its way onto the world stage Taiwan found itself increasingly pushed off it.
President Chiang died in 1975 and three years later his son replaced him as president, raising opposition alarm
that the appointment heralded the start of a Chiang dynasty.
In 1979 opposition groups organised a protest rally in the southern city of Kaohsiung to mark International
Human Rights Day.
The United States formally recognized the People’s Republic of China, severing official diplomatic relations
with Taiwan, now under the rule of Chiang’s son, Chiang Ching-kuo. The U.S. move meant that America
accepted Beijing’s “one China” mandate and abandoned its defense pact with the island. Within months,
though, the U.S. Congress reinstated unofficial economic ties with Taiwan, including the sale of arms.
Democratic movements began to stir on Taiwan in 1979. A rally in the southern city of Kaohsiung turned
violent and was crushed by police. The leaders were arrested and later defended by a little-known, but
successful, maritime commerce lawyer named Chen Shui-bian. Chen, twenty years later, would become the
first non-Nationalist party elected Taiwanese president.
During the 1980s a series of financial scandals rocked the Kuomintang government and criticism grew of
Taiwan’s continued one-party rule. In 1985 Chiang opened talks with the domestic opposition and a year later
Taiwan’s first opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party, was born.
*****
The earthquake
The earthquake hit at 4:53 pm some 15 miles (25 km) southwest of the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince. The
initial shock registered a magnitude of 7.0 and was soon followed by two aftershocks of magnitudes 5.9 and
5.5. More aftershocks occurred in the following days, including another one of magnitude 5.9 that struck on
January 20 at Petit Goâve, a town some 35 miles (55 km) west of Port-au-Prince. Seismologists asserted that
minor tremors would likely persist for months or even years. Haiti had not been hit by an earthquake of such
enormity since the 18th century, the closest in force being a 1984 shock of magnitude 6.9. A magnitude-8.0
earthquake had struck the Dominican Republic in 1946.
The earthquake was generated by the movement of the Caribbean tectonic plate eastward along the Enriquillo–
Plantain Garden strike-slip fault system, a transform boundary that separates the Gonâve microplate—the
fragment of the North American Plate upon which Haiti is situated—from the Caribbean Plate. Occurring at a
depth of 8.1 miles (13 km), the temblor was fairly shallow, which increased the degree of shaking at the Earth’s
surface. The shocks were felt throughout Haiti and the Dominican Republic as well as in parts of nearby Cuba,
Jamaica, and Puerto Rico. The densely populated region around Port-au-Prince, located on the Gulf of Gonâve,
was among those most heavily affected. Farther south the city of Jacmel also sustained significant damage, and
to the west the city of Léogâne, even closer to the epicentre than Port-au-Prince, was essentially leveled.
A country in ruins
The collapsed buildings defining the landscape of the disaster area came as a consequence of Haiti’s lack of
building codes. Without adequate reinforcement, the buildings disintegrated under the force of the quake,
killing or trapping their occupants. In Port-au-Prince the cathedral and the National Palace were both heavily
damaged, as were the United Nations headquarters, national penitentiary, and parliament building. The city,
already beset by a strained and inadequate infrastructure and still recovering from the two tropical storms and
two hurricanes of August–September 2008, was ill-equipped to deal with such a disaster. Other affected areas
of the country—faced with comparable weaknesses—were similarly unprepared.
In the aftermath of the quake, efforts by citizens and international aid organizations to provide medical
assistance, food, and water to survivors were hampered by the failure of the electric power system (which
already was unreliable), loss of communication lines, and roads blocked with debris. A week after the event,
little aid had reached beyond Port-au-Prince; after another week, supplies were being distributed only
sporadically to other urban areas. Operations to rescue those trapped under the wreckage—which had freed
over 100 people—had mostly ceased two weeks into the crisis, as hope that anyone could have survived for that
length of time without food or water began to fade. However, there were still occasional recoveries of people
who had managed to survive such confinement for weeks by rationing the meagre supplies available to them.
A people in crisis
It was estimated that some three million people were affected by the quake—nearly one-third of the country’s
total population. Of these, over one million were left homeless. In the devastated urban areas, the displaced
were forced to squat in ersatz cities composed of found materials and donated tents. Looting—restrained in the
early days following the quake—became more prevalent in the absence of sufficient supplies and was
exacerbated in the capital by the escape of several thousand prisoners from the damaged penitentiary. In the
second week of the aftermath, many urbanites began streaming into outlying areas, either of their own volition
or as a result of governmental relocation programs engineered to alleviate crowded and unsanitary conditions.
Those who remained were encouraged by aid agencies to construct more-substantial provisional housing using
tarpaulins—and, later, donated lumber and sheet metal—in preparation for the rainy season and the hurricane
season.
Because many hospitals had been rendered unusable, survivors were forced to wait days for treatment and, with
morgues quickly reaching capacity, corpses were stacked in the streets. The onset of decay forced the interment
of many bodies in mass graves, and recovery of those buried under the rubble was impeded by a shortage of
heavy-lifting equipment, making death tolls difficult to determine. Figures released by Haitian government
officials at the end of March placed the death toll at 222,570 people, though there was significant disagreement
over the exact figure, and some estimated that nearly a hundred thousand more had perished. Given the
difficulty of observing documentation procedures in the rush to dispose of the dead, it was considered unlikely
that a definitive total would ever be established.
Further deaths occurred as serious injuries went untreated in the absence of medical staff and supplies. The
orphans created by these mass mortalities—as well as those whose parents had died prior to the quake—were
left vulnerable to abuse and human trafficking. Though adoptions of Haitian children by foreign nationals—
particularly in the United States—were expedited, the process was slowed by the efforts of Haitian and foreign
authorities to ensure that the children did not have living relatives, as orphanages had often temporarily
accommodated the children of the destitute.
Because the infrastructure of the country’s computer network was largely unaffected, electronic media emerged
as a useful mode for connecting those separated by the quake and for coordinating relief efforts. Survivors who
were able to access the Internet—and friends and relatives abroad—took to social networking sites such as
Twitter and Facebook in search of information on those missing in the wake of the catastrophe. Feeds from
these sites also assisted aid organizations in constructing maps of the areas affected and in determining where to
channel resources. The many Haitians lacking Internet access were able to contribute updates via text
messaging on mobile phones.
The general disorder created by the earthquake—combined with the destruction of the country’s electoral
headquarters and the death of UN officials working in concert with the Haitian electoral council—prompted
Haitian Pres. René Préval to defer legislative elections that had been scheduled for the end of February.
Préval’s term in office was set to end the following year.
Humanitarian aid
Humanitarian aid was promised by numerous organizations—spearheaded by the United Nations and the
International Red Cross—and many countries in the region and around the world sent doctors, relief workers,
and supplies. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton, who had in May 2009 been named the UN special envoy to
Haiti, was assigned the task of coordinating the efforts of the disparate aid initiatives. In the months following
the disaster, Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive expressed concern that foreign nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs)—which were numerous in Haiti even prior to the quake and which bore responsibility
for diverse aspects of the recovery—were not sufficiently accounting for the use of their resources, making it
challenging for the Haitian government to assess where its own resources could best be deployed. The NGOs,
in turn, were hindered by their own unwieldy bureaucratic structures and found interorganizational
communication difficult. The U.S. military—though providing considerable initial support in the form of
equipment, logistics coordination, and personnel—had withdrawn all but a fraction of its forces by the second
week of March, leaving UN peacekeepers and Haitian police to maintain order.
Using a model that had proved successful in Europe after the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, programs were
initiated abroad whereby mobile phone users could make donations via text messages. A sizeable portion of the
aid gathered in the United States was channeled through mobile phone companies. A celebrity telethon hosted
by Haitian American rapper Wyclef Jean in New York City and American actor George Clooney in Los
Angeles and featuring numerous other entertainers was broadcast internationally and generated over $60
million.
A significant portion of Haiti’s debt had been cancelled the previous year as part of the Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries initiative of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, but the country still owed more
than $1 billion to a range of creditors. With its economy barely functioning, the country appeared unlikely to
meet those obligations. In February the G7 countries forgave the remaining portion of Haiti’s debt to them, and
in March the Inter-American Development Bank forgave $447 million and pledged over $30 million in further
support. A UN donor conference in New York City in late March generated pledges of $9.9 billion, with $5.3
billion to be used during the first two years of reconstruction efforts. The bulk of the sum was put forth by the
United States and the European Union (EU). The donor conference also established the Interim Haiti Recovery
Commission, a partnership between the Haitian government and foreign donors that, under the chairmanship of
Clinton and Préval, would disburse aid funds to a variety of reconstruction efforts. The commission was
approved by the Haitian parliament in April, 2010.
*****