Relations between The United States and Shia Iran.

In my humble opinion, the differences between the United States of America, and the Islamic Republic of Iran has a history, which precedes the history of the rule of the last Shah of Iran. The United States, has been on amiable terms with the Sunni states like the United Arab Emirates, and at one time in history, was also on amiable terms with the Shah of Iran, at the same time. This was unacceptable to the Shia population of Iran, which was much under the influence of the Ayatollah's, who are the guardians of the Shia following in Iran. The Iranian's had no personal grudge directly with the United States. Perhaps, the Ayatollah's felt that The United States of America would make the interests of Iran secondary, to the interests of the United Arab Emirates, and other Sunni dominated Muslim states. This might be because, the United States was dependent on the oil supplied by the United Arab Emirates, and also Iraq, which also, then, had Saddam Hussein as President. I am sure that the United States had also deliberated on this, but on second impressions, I believe, that this might have escaped the United States administration, then, considering the beliefs and actions of the United States on the matters of Iran, now. How this could have escaped the consideration of Mr Kissinger, is beyond me. I am sure that he had come to the same conclusions as I have come to, now. I urge the United States administration to not consider immediate material self interest, and to work to have good relations with all Sunni and Shia Muslim states all over the world. The Iranian's have as much of a varied history, as do the Jewish democracy, and Muslim states, all over the world. The mistrust between Shia and Sunni, must be made into a bridge of trust, and the United States has the power to achieve this. The United States must also remember, that due to the Middle East War's between Israel and other Muslim States, the Shia populated Beruit, also suffered because of the military action of Israel, if I am not mistaken. It seems to me, that the Cold War foreign affairs policy, on the part of the United States, was that the Cold War should extend indefinitely, while the opposite view was taken by Mr Mikhail Gorbachev, the architect of Glasnost and Perestroika. The United States was comfortable with the international status quo, which was brought about with the Cold War. I do not see, that NATO wanted the Cold War to end, hence the royal mess, that the world finds itself in.

The Issue of Naxalism in present day India.

The issue of Naxalism in India, pertaining to the present day, makes a person come to certain unfortunate conclusions. Today, fighting an armed uprising against the administration of India is impossible. The Naxal uprising which started in the nineteen sixties, had a leadership which was disillusioned with the status quo of the Indian State. It was more impossible then, than it is today, to fight such a battle. The Naxal uprising then, surfaced under very romantic notions of Josef Stalin, and Karl Marx. I knew a gentleman who looked upto Josef Stalin, but he had since given up Naxalism. He was, and I suppose is, a great intellectual mind who lives in Kolkata, perhaps. What strikes me today, is that he had the same notions about Josef Stalin, as I may have about Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, today. When I mentioned that Stalin is supposed to have committed certain crimes, very henious crimes, he refused to accept. It strikes me now, today, that another person may have as strong views about Naxalism, as I may have about Democracy. After all, Stalin was as much a man as am I, and so was my science teacher. Opium is not the religion of the masses, nor is religion the opium of the masses. Perhaps, thought, and feeling, when given full flight, become a law unto themselves. This gentleman thought himself more capable than the man next to himself. He did not believe in religion. But his capacity for thought, made him a great champion for the Naxal cause. I believe, he had given up the cause, because the people did not believe, with one intent in Naxalism, in West Bengal.
Today, the Naxal movement in India, is very different. This movement is very recent in it's entity. I believe, that no ideology drives the present Naxal menace, but the members of the Naxal groups are tribals, who have been displaced by the emerging India, who no one bothers to care for, whose livelihood has been made non existent. The tribals are a great number in India, and the states where the Naxal issue has surfaced, have a large tribal population. Without the habitat, which they have, they loose the sense of their identity. This causes, perhaps hopelessness in their ranks, and then when they have no other option, then they are made to join what is termed as a Naxal movement. The leaders of the movement are perhaps, very few in number. I too feel for the tribals, and their plight. But is it right for a large number of Indian citizens to be made cannon fodder for Indian security forces, whose work it is to defend India, and her citizens? How is it, that the elite Naxal leadership, sees themselves as human beings, and the tribals as human beings, but not the other people of India, as such, too? Is the ordinary Indian citizen bereft of heart, or mind, that he does not want to see the plight of these tribals? Tribals cannot displace the Indian administration from New Delhi. If possible, the minds of the Indian citizenry, must be made more compassionate towards their immediate, and not so immediate environment. I see a disconnect between the Naxal leadership, and the Naxal cadre. The cadre is not the leadership, and the leadership is not the cadre. It would be good for the Indian Government to work for the tribals, as much as work is done for Rural and Urban India. The Statehood of India and all what it stands for, is dependent on the good works the citizen of India does in this regard.

The case of Ms Ishrat Jahan.

The case rests on the information given by the central government, about the companions of Ms Ishrat Jahan and about the expression in Pakistan, given supposedly by the Lashkar e Tayiba about Ms Jahan, after the alleged encounter took place. I would like to add, that the case seems as white, as it does black to me. The lady was mentioned by the Lashkar e Tayibba, but they knew very little about the lady, except that she was the supposed spouse of one of the alleged criminals in the car. Could that have been made up, by them? I don't assume, that the men in the car were not guilty, in past criminal misdemeanors, perhaps, some of them, and not all. The man with Ms Jahan, was supposed to be a criminal, and he knew supposedly, the Lashkar terrorists, but was he a Laskkar operative? The question is not, whether his life was of consequence or inconsequential, but the fact, that Ms Jahan was perhaps tragically killed in police action. Agreed, that the car was not a registered taxi, but was the car private in ownership? Were the people in the car, going to commit a terrorist misdemeanor, or were they on their way to commit a terrorist misdemeanor? I do not believe the alleged incounter could have been avoided, but if the unfortunate riots had not taken place in Gujarat, then this supposed plot would not have been hatched. What requirement is there in Gujarat for the Chief Minister's life to be in danger, by the prevailing situation there? Perhaps, this turn of events could have been avoided?
The whole case rests, as I have intimated, on the intelligence shared by the central intelligence agencies, with the Gujarat government.