Visiting General Singh Praises Modi, Criticizes Congress and Media (Video)

Washington, DC - Former Indian Army Chief Vijay Kumar Singh, widely seen as a protégé of Anna Hazare, recently accompanied the anti-corruption crusader to the United States. In an exclusive interview with Tejinder Singh, editor of India America Today, the General shared his views on various subjects, including his birth certificate controversy and the hypocrisy of the Congress party in focusing on the 2002 Gujarat riots while not taking responsibility for the 1984 Sikh massacre, and he also praised the Bharatiya Janata Party BJP prime ministerial hopeful Narendra Modi's style of functioning.
Welcome to the US. You have something in common with the President (Barack Obama). Both were attacked for their birth. He (Obama) was attacked where he was born and you are attacked when you were born. So he has taken it in stride, how are you taking it in your stride.
I have taken it in my stride.
What do you think about it, that there was some finger pointing or that there was one person who started the ball rolling and then it went. Even for myself, I have a school leaving certificate that is the birth certificate. Why is all this?
There are lot of reasons, the arms lobby, the vested interest of people. There is a combination of factors. And I think there was fear generated amongst the lobbyist also that look here now your things won’t get through. You have to be honest to your oath; you have to be honest to armed forces. You can’t be taking things which are not good or the things which are over priced. So it was bugging a lot of people. I think that was one of the reasons.
So is it okay to say that you became a causality in the corrupt environment?
See, when you stand up against corruption which is institutionalized, a lot of people would like to shoo you off. I think you are right that way.
Recently the Defense Minister Anthony gave Pakistan a clean chit, while our soldiers are dying on the border. What is the impact on the moral fabric of the Indian Army?
The Indian Army gave a situation report. You don’t have to give a very interesting excuse, which was given, that we were waiting for the Chief of the Army Staff to go there and come and tell us what had happened. If you are not going to trust people who are on the ground, then there is something wrong. So I think an unnecessary charade was created. All that was behind it is that, that statement that was given by Rakshamantri (Defense Minister) was drafted in the National Security Advisor’s and PMO’s office. So there was more to it. I think there are at times misconceptions where people think that if they cozy up, it will be seen as diplomatic victory. I don’t think so. Under the same Nawaz Sharif we had Kargil. Whom are you trusting? Is it that false notion, that because you are trying to have a rapprochement with Pakistan so somebody is going to give you a Noble Prize? I don’t know. But all that I would say as a common man, as a soldier it is something which is not done. You are lowering the morale of your soldiers which is not correct and sending the wrong message to the country.
Congratulations on your Hall of Fame which was given to you March 11th, 2011. What Is your take on the US India defense cooperation, defense deals, nuclear deals, where do we stand and where do we head, do you feel?
You can have an agreement, but if that agreement or the deal is not taken forward, then it is even not worth the paper on which it is written. The scope for the cooperation, whether it is defense or whether it is anything else or it is cross-sectoral collaboration between US and India, scope is immense. It is now up to more on India because of the type of the procedural delays that take place to ensure that these get fructified. After all, what does India look for from US? It is looking at the latest technology where defense is concerned. I am quite sure US would be willing to part with things if they are negotiated properly. You can set up do it ventures. You can do things and you can reap the benefits. It requires quite a lot of efforts.
You have been quoted as saying that Operation Blue Star was a political decision and not a military decision. If you come to US and in Canada where they express their feelings and even in England and even in India, the Sikhs are still hurt, their sentiments are hurt. What do you suggest the government should do? If you were in charge, what will you do?
There were many methods available at that time. A range of options were suggested. But the political decision-making based on whatever political inputs the leadership at that time had was what came about. I stand by my statement because I am convinced about it. In fact, I will say that I am aware of the facts that time as to how things happened. So it was a political decision. Militarily, if it was left to military commanders they could have done so many things and it may not have been done the way it was done.
Is there any suggestion what they should do now for the hurt feelings of the Sikh community?
That is again a political issue that you have to assuage the feelings of the Sikhs. Lot of things went wrong in 1984. I find it at the height of hypocrisy when you talk of 2002 in Gujarat, but you don’t talk of what happened in 1984 and it is the party that was involved in it. What more can you have. This gimmickry has to stop. And if do, take genuine action if they reach out. Somebody has got to say, look here, we are sorry. We did it wrong. No harm done.
You mentioned 2002 Gujarat. What is your take on Mr. Narendra Modi. He is quite a well-known name here. I have raised the question about his visa at the State Department three times. What is going on there - is there clarity coming out of it?
So far as Mr Modi is concerned, Gujarat has done very well. That is an undisputed fact. Whether it is progress in infrastructure, whether it is progress for all the sections of society, whether it is- all areas have been addressed pretty well. That’s it. Now to say if you are to ask Mr Modi which fruit do you like and he says I like apple and one says see, he likes blood, because apple is red. I think that is stupidity of highest order. And people who are engaging in it lesser, better it is for their intelligence.
So will you support him for the Prime Ministerial Candidate?
I don’t know. I have told you my philosophy?
Is he a good…
I haven’t ..I don’t know him personally..
But you like his way.
Style of functioning is good. One needs to know more about it. Before you take the decision, the type that you are saying.
You do feel that he had been positively-
He has done positively well in Gujarat.
And if he follows that in India, it will be excellent.
Lets see.
What is your overall assessment on China, then on security in Bangladesh. The military is again playing a role in Naxals, Maoist so military is engaging within India as well. How is military handling all that?
Military is not involved in Naxal area. I was asked this when I took over as Chief, and I said it is a socio-economic issue, it is a issue of governance, it is an issue of development. You have failed on that and now why do you want to ask the military to go into it. They are not asking for a separate country. It is not a secessionist movement. Much more has to be done on the law and order front. On governance, development, socio-economic issues, tribal rights, how they are being handled - those are to be addressed. Military is not the answer for Naxal area. That is why we are not there. Bangladesh, we enjoy very good relationship. There are no problems with Bangladesh. China and Pakistan, yes. Again in both the cases, the government needs to have a firm and clear-cut policy which tells the neighbors, look here, this much and no more. Then things will become better.
Recently we have Freedom of Information Act, under that, CIA has released, which had carried a story that our first Prime Minister Nehru allowed the use of airspace and later the airbase in south of Calcutta to the US spy planes U2. What do you think about it. Is it a possibility in near future also?
A nation’s policies are dependent on what national interests are. A nation will accordingly craft its policies on security, foreign policy and other fronts. So if the national demands a particular, it will happen. If the national interest does not demand, it will not happen.
Just a few days ago a magistrate in Delhi said something that you come with a crowd and you create roughness. What is going on there?
The honorable court never said that what the media has used. Court says, ‘’Gen. V.K. Singh is a nuisance.’’ These words were never used. But obviously somebody is being paid to write such things and they carry on in the rest of the papers. All he said was, that whenever I am called to the court, obviously there are large number of people who like they come to the court. It is freedom. They can come to the court. And he feels that it creates an environment that puts him under a little pressure. I don’t know why he should be under pressure. I think they should be used to more crowds. It is a court house - anybody can go and attend. So it’s more a, you can say, off the cuff remark, which has got degenerated in the media.
Today you are in US with Anna Hazare. What is that you are out to conquer, to deliver, that people are asking why they are here, what is their purpose, what is their vision? Iif you can tell our viewers.
We came here to attend India Day parade in New York at the invitation of the FIA (Federation of Indian Associations). And we have utilized the time to interact with the Indian community to tell them what we are working for the community. We have told them that there is a need for a change in India. There is need to ensure that democracy in true form gets back. We want the Indian constitution to be followed in true spirits. Which, as per our analysis and way the things are, the political parties have vitiated it. And we wanted to see and hear how the Indian community feels about it. To that extent we have got our feedback by interacting with them. And they have got a ringside view of what we are saying or what we are doing. That’s all. There is no other purpose. We didn’t want any funds because we believe that people’s movement would be funded by people and not by business houses or anything else. We exclusively told them we are not looking for funds but we are at their roots, we are looking at technology by which they can reach out to people and tell them back home this is a time for change. Let’s change things as they are.
I have been repeatedly asked this question here since your visit- that you have talked today and Mr. Hazare has said that political party system is not correct according to the constitution, and people were confused because since last 60 plus years they have been watching that.
See that is the problem. Since 66 years we have got into a groove. We didn’t realize that we are not sending our representatives into the Parliament, people who were supposed to represent them, that party representatives. They won’t talk of the party. They talk of party interest. They are brokers of the party. They sell party ticket. They collect funds for the party. They talk to the businessman and party funds. So what we are saying is this must change. Person who represents people must be answerable to people. If people feel he is not delivering, people must have the right to catch him by the ear and tell him thank you very much and get back. That is the thing we are looking at and that is the spirit of the constitution. It is not something new, it is not something we are inventing; we are not reinventing the wheels.

: springhead
http://www.indiaamericatoday.com/article/visiting-general-singh-praises-modi-criticizes-congress-and-media-video

Critical of Congress Policies, General Singh Praises Narendra Modi

Washington, DC - Former Indian Army Chief General V.K. Singh recently expressed disappointment with the Congress party for not accepting responsibility for the 1984 massacre of Sikhs in India, while continuously harping on what happened in Gujarat in 2002.
In an exclusive interview with Tejinder Singh, editor, India America Today, General Singh said, "I find it at the height of hypocrisy when you talk of 2002 in Gujarat but you don’t talk of what happened 1984 and it (Congress) is the party that was involved in it. What more can you have. So this gimmickry has to stop."
When asked if he supported Narendra Modi as a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) prime ministerial candidate, General Singh said, "So far as Mr. Modi is concerned, Gujarat has done very well. That is an undisputed fact. Whether it is progress in infrastructure, whether it is progress for all the sections of society… all areas have been addressed pretty well."
Asked to clarify whether he endorses Modi as a BJP candidate for Indian Prime Minister, Singh said, "I don’t know. I have told you my philosophy."
Describing Modi's style of functioning as "good," Singh told India America Today, "One needs to know more about it. Before you take the decision the type that you are saying (on prime ministerial position)," adding, "He has done positively well in Gujarat."
Regarding the ongoing negativity from many quarters, the General said, "If you are to ask Mr. Modi which fruit do you like and he says I like apple and one says, see, he likes blood because apple is red. I think that is stupidity of highest order."
Gujarat Chief Minister Modi was recently made the poll panel chief of the BJP party and virtually being projected as the next prime minister of India if the BJP wins the 2014 general elections.

: springhead
http://www.indiaamericatoday.com/article/critical-congress-policies-general-singh-praises-narendra-modi

Alka Sagar Becomes First Female Indian American Federal Judge in the Nation

California - The United States District Court for the Central District of California recently announced the selection of Alka Sagar as a United States Magistrate Judge. Judge Sagar, who became the first female Indian American federal judge in the nation when she was sworn in on August 21, told India America Today, "I am very excited about this opportunity to work for justice in serving the people of the United States."
The North American South Asian Bar Association (NASABA) applauded Judge Sagar’s appointment and its President Nadeem Bezar said in a statement, "We are proud of Alka’s accomplishments and are very excited about her appointment.”
Sagar will join Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, former SABA-SC (Southern California) President, on the bench. Judge Gandhi remarked that, “As a decorated federal prosecutor and, now, the first South Asian female federal judge in California, (Judge Sagar) exemplifies the best of America, and the Court is privileged to have her ample talents at hand."
"She has not only one of the sharpest legal minds, but the rare gift of impeccable judgment. She has also exhibited a steadfast commitment to public service. In sum, Judge Sagar is an extraordinary person, and I am confidant she will be a terrific jurist,” added Judge Gandhi.
Judge Sagar will sit in Los Angeles in the Court’s Western Division, filling the position vacated by former Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin when he was appointed as a District Judge in January 2013. Prior to her selection as a Magistrate Judge, Judge Sagar had served as an Assistant US Attorney in the United States Attorney's Office in Los Angeles since 1987, serving as a Deputy Chief in the former Major Crimes Section since 1991 and as a Deputy Chief in the office’s Major Frauds Section since 2001.
As an Assistant US Attorney, Judge Sagar handled and supervised complex fraud, money laundering, and criminal tax matters from investigation through prosecution and appellate review, and was the recipient of an Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service for her prosecution of over 70 lawyers and doctors involved in a kickback scheme. From 2004 to 2006, she also served as a judge pro tem for the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Before joining the US Attorney's Office,
Judge Sagar was an associate at two law firms in Los Angeles. She received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in 1981, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, and her J.D. from the UCLA School of Law in 1984.
The Central District of California is comprised of the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo, and serves approximately 18.7 million people – nearly half the population of the state of California.

: springhead
http://www.indiaamericatoday.com/article/alka-sagar-becomes-first-female-indian-american-federal-judge-nation

General Singh Blasts Indian Media for Distorting Words in “Ruckus” Reporting

Washington, DC - Former Army Chief General Vijay Kumar Singh, facing criminal defamation charges, blamed the Indian media for reports that he was termed a "nuisance" by a Delhi court, which said his presence creates a "ruckus" in the court room.

In an exclusive interview with India America Today, General Singh said, "The honorable court never said that what the media has used. Court says, 'Gen. V.K. Singh is a nuisance.' These words were never used. But obviously somebody is being paid to write such things and they carry on in the rest of the papers."

General Singh had asked for an exemption from appearing, as he could not be present while traveling in the US. While granting him an absence, the magistrate used the opportunity to condemn the general’s previous appearances in the court room.

According to Indian media reports, Metropolitan Magistrate Jay Thareja said whenever General Singh comes to the court, he brings a crowd with him which produces a “ruckus” and proceedings are hampered.

The general explained, "All he said was, that whenever I am called to the court, obviously there are large number of people who like they come to the court. It is freedom. They can come to the court."

While granting the general an exemption from personal appearance for the day for the “last time” in the case, the magistrate was quoted as saying, "Whenever he is not appearing, it is better for my proceedings, otherwise the trial gets delayed … My past experience shows that the dates when these persons do not appear, my proceedings go on but when they appear the proceedings get stuck."

In his exclusive remarks, General Singh told India America Today, "He (the magistrate) feels that it creates an environment that puts him under a little pressure. I don’t know why he should be under pressure. I think they should be used to more crowds…it is a court house…anybody can go and attend. So its more a, you can say, off the cuff remark which has got degenerated in the media."

The court allowed the plea of the retired general, who had sought exemption from appearance for the day’s proceedings on the grounds that he was in the US and would return to India on August 25.

 : springhead

http://www.indiaamericatoday.com/article/general-singh-blasts-indian-media-distorting-words-%E2%80%9Cruckus%E2%80%9D-reporting

Legality of Intervention in Syria in Response to Chemical Weapon Attacks

Washington, DC - The increasing conviction that the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria has used 

chemical weapons in an attack with many civilian casualties raises the question: what military response may the outside world legally take without the authority of the UN Security Council?

International law questions are not the only ones that matter to the decision to intervene militarily, of course. Whether a proposed course of action is legal has to stand alongside other essential questions. Is the proposed mission practical and prudent? And whether a proposed course of action in a crisis is, strictly speaking, legal or not under existing international law might not settle matters for some important international actors.

For these governments, legal scholars, international NGOs and human rights advocates, even something that is formally not legal might, under circumstances of humanitarian crisis, emergency, and necessity, still be seen as justified and right, irrespective of what international law has to say about it.

However, international law is always vital to the discussion, especially in a moment of grave crisis marked by significant political disagreement among states and deadlocked diplomacy in the UN Security Council.

To the surprise of many, international law does not provide clear-cut answers. The basic propositions that would justify armed intervention under international law are sharply contested by states through their governments and foreign ministries, international organizations and their diplomats and lawyers, and independent experts such as professors of international law.

The purpose of this Insight is to describe the legal positions, their arguments and counterarguments. I assume, for this analysis, that the Government of Syria has used chemical weapons that injured or killed a large number of civilians; and that Russian opposition will continue to block the UN Security Council from authorizing intervention.

The practical question is whether the United States and its allies ought to take armed military action in Syria against the Assad regime. The legal question is whether it can do so under international law without the authorization of the UN Security Council.

What are the arguments that the United States can make in favor of the international legality of such action, and what are the arguments against? Formalist and pragmatic approaches to international law provide very different answers.

The UN Charter

The United States would be in the surest legal position if it could find support in the formal language of the UN Charter. The Charter says, in Article 2(4), that states shall refrain from the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity" of any other member state. It goes on to say, in Article 51, that the Charter does not impair a state's "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense" - but only in case of an "armed attack." Otherwise, authority to use force is given over to the Security Council.

Neither the United States nor its allies have themselves been attacked. There is thus no basis for invoking individual self-defense.

Could the United States claim that it is acting in "collective" self-defense? The United States has cited the possible self-defense of neighboring states, including Jordan, Turkey, and Israel, but those countries have not clearly signaled a request for assistance in their own self-defense.

The United States said, much earlier as the Syrian civil war escalated, that the Assad government had lost legitimacy, but this was a political, not legal, claim. It might go a step further and say that the Assad government is no longer the legitimate, lawful government of Syria, and argue that the it uses force not against UN member state "Syria," but rather against the illegitimate Assad regime and in collective self-defense of the Syrian people.

The difficulties of this approach include, however, that declarations of illegitimacy by the United States and some of its allies aside, the Assad government meets essentially all the formal requirements of international law to be the legal government. It remains in "effective control of the state," observers would likely conclude, and continues to be recognized as the legal government by states generally (and not just by Russia).

The United States seeks recourse that is indeed contemplated by the UN Charter. However, it is the prerogative of the Security Council to determine whether some act by a state is a threat, in the language of Article 39, to "international peace or security."

The Security Council has in the past found threats to international peace and security on the basis of acts taking place wholly within a state, by a government against its people. But it has not done so in this case, because – pursuant to the fundamental structure of the UN Charter – some permanent, veto-bearing members of the Security Council have not so far agreed.

Responsibility to Protect

Given general agreement that purely formal legal arguments based on the UN Charter leave authorization with the Security Council, many proponents have urged armed intervention on a pragmatic, less formal, legal argument. The international community has accepted a legally binding norm prohibiting mass atrocities against civilian populations, including those that take place within a single state.

This indisputably binding legal norm has no meaning if it does not imply the legal authority to enforce it, including by the use of force; if you will the end, you must will the means.

This, in effect, yields a legal argument for so-called "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" that was raised far earlier in the Syrian civil war. The international community has both a right and obligation, in the strongest form of the argument, to intervene in the internal affairs of a state in order to protect civilian populations against mass atrocities, which are plainly prohibited by international law.

As a basis for the United States and its allies to act unilaterally, however, the humanitarian intervention argument suffers from two grave legal problems.

The first is that it is far from settled that, as a matter of formal international law, R2P has been accepted as binding law. The prohibition on mass atrocities has, certainly; but acceptance of a remedy in the form of permission to intervene in the territory of a state, as R2P asserts, much less so if at all. (Indeed, it is doubtful that even the United States believes this is so as a matter of current international law.)

The second is that to the extent that one can point to any formal legal acceptance of R2P as a lawful remedy, it appears to be only by authorization of the Security Council, not unilateral action by concerned states, even accepting that they act benevolently and in good faith.

This legal state of affairs did not come about by accident. On the contrary, cabining of a gradual, cautious evolution toward R2P strictly within the Security Council was a deliberate move by states who, far from celebrating the new humanitarianism that the United States and NATO believed they found in the 1999 Kosovo intervention, were gravely worried by it.

Their concerns are reflected in the closest thing to a "formal" acceptance of R2P in international law – the UN reform document adopted by the General Assembly as a resolution in 2005. While this "Final Outcome Document" mentions the concept of responsibility to protect, it puts it strictly into the hands of the Security Council. The formal legal argument on this basis cuts against unilateral action by states.

Illegal but Legitimate Response to Mass Atrocities

The formal legal limitations of R2P and the apparent requirement of Security Council authorization have led some international lawyers to embrace two seemingly inconsistent positions: The first is the formal legal conclusion that unilateral intervention indeed would be illegal. And the second is - do it anyway, because though illegal, it would still be politically and morally legitimate.

This revives a position offered by a number of international lawyers at the time of the Kosovo war – "illegal but legitimate." To the extent that it had resonance at that time, it was likely because international politics were in a different place from today. Despite the horrors of Rwanda and the Yugoslavia wars, there was a residual, hopeful belief left over from 1990 that the great powers (which effectively meant the United States along with NATO) were in essential agreement on such things as mass atrocities.

In retrospect, it would probably be more accurate to say that Russia correctly perceived that it lacked the real power to contest Kosovo and simply let it go – without, however, much forgiving or forgetting. In today's world of rising great powers, BRICS, resurgent China and Russia, the extra-legal political legitimacy that once made this argument plausible as an alternative to a formal legal one is not really evident.

Should the United States or its allies act alone, they cannot depend on the same general sense of political legitimacy that NATO could in Kosovo as late as 1999.

Moreover, the view of many other countries in the world—that NATO took a distinctly limited license by the Security Council for humanitarian intervention in Libya and turned it into unlimited license for regime change—has almost certainly altered the willingness of Russia and China to grant any formal authority through Security Council authorization.

They simply do not appear to trust the Western powers to respect what they believed were the limited terms on which it was granted in the past. Libya, it might be said, has poisoned the well of political legitimacy for humanitarian intervention, through overreach beyond the terms of formal law.

Thus, the assertion of a moral obligation standing beyond and above formal international law might well be the right thing to do – but its political legitimacy, if that is what finally matters in the absence of legality, depends as well on how others regard it. 

It is unlikely that an armed action for the sake of humanitarian intervention, in the reasonable certainty that the Security Council would not authorize it if asked, would have the political legitimacy claimed for it or that it would gradually acquire it over time, sufficient to overcome its acknowledged illegality.

Bans on the Use of Chemical Weapons

The specific issue that has moved the Obama administration to act has not been the humanitarian disaster or even mass atrocities over the course of the Syrian civil war. It is the apparent use of chemical weapons. The fact of a major chemical weapons attack provides a different formal legal argument.

An accumulation of treaties, starting with the 1925 Poison Gas Protocol following World War I and running through the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, as well as developing state practice and custom, all lead to the conclusion that the use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law.

There might still be some fringe disputes over whether a reprisal use, in response to an illegal first use, is legal, but it appears unlikely today. In that case, a chemical attack by the Assad government is a plain and serious violation of international law, but then the question is what remedy exists and who is able to exercise it?

One approach is to say that the use of chemical weapons worsens the humanitarian crisis in Syria, and therefore humanitarian intervention under R2P is justified. Yet this argument suffers derivatively from all the problems of the unilateral invocation of R2P discussed above. The more important question is whether anything about the use of chemical weapons provides a distinct legal ground for action.

The strongest case would be a formal legal argument that international law has come to treat the prohibition on any use of chemical weapons in war against civilians or soldiers as a "jus cogens norm." Jus cogens norms are a special category of international laws so fundamental that no derogation or departure from them can be accepted; even contrary treaty provisions are superseded. Genocide and crimes against humanity are examples.

While the use of chemical weapons may be universally considered a violation of international law, the claim that it is a violation of a jus cogens norm would be sharply disputed. Moreover, the Charter's prohibition on the use of force save in limited circumstances of self-defense may be argued to be itself a jus cogens norm, and one more widely accepted than an absolute ban on the use of chemical weapons.

The international community finds itself in a very troubling situation. From the horrors of World War I until now, chemical weapons have gradually come to be seen as an unacceptable weapon. This has been a gradual and partly informal change of norms – from the Cold War period in which both sides contemplated the use of chemical weapons to now. The relatively few modern uses by governments, such as Saddam Hussein's, have not altered their pariah status.

But now, after the gradual evolution of a norm both legal and political over nearly a century, the world might accept a profound alteration of that status quo. Who would have thought, a mere year or two ago, that the status quo norm against the use of such weapons would be so fragile, and if breached might draw down upon the user merely token or perhaps even no consequences?

The use of chemical weapons in an internal armed conflict against civilians thus not only might incur few or no real world consequences – but might incur few or no consequences in large part because of legal arguments that those who might respond to preserve an important humanitarian norm could not lawfully do so under the formal law of the UN Charter.

Pragmatic International Law in Defense of the Chemical Weapons Prohibition

Great powers capable of a practical defense of the chemical weapons prohibition argue their obligation to do so. US Secretary of State John Kerry, in saying that the violation of this international law norm must have consequences is arguing for the defense of a norm against chemical weapons use as such, not merely on the grounds that their use worsens the humanitarian disaster in Syria.

To regard this as a legal argument, rather than merely a policy or political one, requires a different understanding of the nature of international law than the one that has driven the discussion of alternative arguments so far. International law can be regarded as essentially defined by formal characteristics – the text of the Charter, for example. Formalists make the arguments presented so far.

But another way to view international law as law reflects the traditional, long-held approach of the United States and its Department of State. This is sometimes known as a "pragmatic" approach to international law. Law among nations, it asserts, is necessarily and inevitably intertwined with politics, policy, diplomacy, and real world consequences of actions – that is, the facts of power.

This approach to international law differs from the "illegal but legitimate" way of seeing international law, in that the pragmatic approach views these other factors as part of international law itself, and indeed a vital way of ensuring that international law remains relevant as law to the harsh realities of international politics.

It rejects formalism because it wraps these consequences-based, real world concerns into the law itself – and hence offers a view of the law that is still about law, but goes well beyond strict formalism. Both approaches are contested but plausible understandings of international law, each with long pedigrees and no easy way of reconciling their fundamentally different approaches.

The United States by and large adopts a pragmatic view of international law, and this provides perhaps the best, or at least most plausible, argument in favor of intervention to address violations of the norm against chemical weapons use by the Assad regime.

The argument is that the United States acts to defend a norm that, while lacking formal expression in a strictly legalistic sense, has long endured as a profound humanitarian constraint. It can scarcely be overstated how much harm would come about were this enduring norm to be undermined by inaction by the United States and its allies, as states around the world took notice that chemical weapons were used on a major scale without consequences, because of handwringing over legalisms.

The pragmatic approach to international law sees international law not as a formal enterprise unto itself, but instead as part of a system of general international order, where the law itself embraces the legality of enforcing a certain amount of rough order in the world.

This legal argument suggests that the meaning of international law has never been as purely rule-bound or entirely separated from the requirements of international order as a formalist UN Charter view suggests. In that view, it is inconceivable that the United States should not act, even without Security Council authorization.

The United States would act in reprisal against the Assad government – to impose a substantial cost on its violation of the norm, to disincentivize future violations, and to send a signal to the rest of the world that the norm remains in place.

The tradition of pragmatic international law is cautious about declaring final, formal answers in law, precisely because it is not formalist and looks to facts and circumstances of the real world, consequences, and power.

Instead, consistent with a pragmatic approach (at least as seen from an outside observer's view), it seems to look for legal answers that are reasonable, reasonably practicable in the real world and not just in formal law, and can be offered in good faith. 

But this "reasonable" approach to international law thereby has to accept that others might, equally in good faith, reach different but reasonable legal conclusions. And Security Council members seeking to block military action can make arguments that they would claim are not only reasonable and defensible, but based on far stronger formal grounds.

Thus, the United States may claim that it is entitled to pursue a position that it considers pragmatically necessary and reasonably justified under international law. The obligation for the United States to act arises where basic principles of international order are at stake, such as erosion of the norm against chemical weapons use.

Yet the very flexibility and openness that characterizes this pragmatic approach – the reciprocity that characterizes relations between sovereign states - must mean that other states with plausible positions are entitled to do the same.

Over the long run, surely this is not a recipe for the peaceful settlement of disputes: it displaces the role of the Security Council, and it invites other great powers to respond in kind. It might preserve the global norm against the use of chemical weapons.

But it risks undermining the authority of the Security Council in the eyes of the great powers—including those who sit on it— as well as the rest of the world, and over time could pave the way to great power war.

Conclusion

The world is thus at a fraught place, not just about particular actions, but about the conception of international law that undergirds international order. A legal norm hangs in the balance—one with both formal and informal dimensions, a norm of warfare of enormous humanitarian consequence if systematically breached and also of unexpected endurance. 

And yet, at the same time, the authority and role of the Security Council are equally at issue here. It is not clear that any of the legal arguments – on any side – are adequate to address the real world stakes. 

Courtesy: © 2013 The American Society of International Law

: springhead

http://www.indiaamericatoday.com/article/legality-intervention-syria-response-chemical-weapon-attacks

Incomplete Habitat: Goddess Smiles, but Kumartuli Artisans Weep

Kolkata - The dingy lanes are a sharp contrast to the silken strip of river that flows by Kumartuli, an old area of North Kolkata that produces amazing clay idols that India and the rest of the world worship during Durga puja in the month of October.
Over 400 artisans work their nimble fingers on straw and clay for months to produce a picture-perfect Goddess that "descends from the Himalayas" for five days, to be worshipped by mortals. A trip to Kumartuli reveals that all is not well with the economic condition of the artisans, and many of them still lack a proper roof over their shanty workshops.
Promised a permanent habitat complete with workshop, housing, and even an art gallery by the erstwhile CPIM (Communist Party of India - Marxists) Government in 2009, the artisans rue the fact that the project was not finished on time and remains a pipe-dream.
"Only two blocks out of four were built. The Rs 40 crore ($6 million approximately) project was supposed to be funded partially by the central government and partly by the state governments. But in 2011, the Trinamool Congress came into power in the state, and subsequently, there has been no fresh construction," said Babu Pal, the spokesperson of the Kumartuli Mritshilpo Karigar Samiti.
About 70 odd artisans have been rehabilitated to date. They still manage to make large idols, sometimes towering above 10 feet. The ones that are exported (about 48 this year), however, are only about 6 feet tall and are sent mostly to the US. Idols are exported to about 90 countries worldwide.
"We approached the Mayor of Kolkata (Trinamool Board) for help. Most of us live from hand to mouth since we have to deal with the vagaries of the weather with tarpaulin sheets covering our workshops. But there has been no response from the state government till date," says Pal.
The other problem hounding the artisans is the growing disinterest of the younger generation in the craft of making idols. "They all want to grow up to be painters. Unless they see our lots getting improved, they will not want to carry on with the age-old art of idol making," says a senior artisan.
With barely a month away until the festivities begin, the Kumartuli artisans will probably have a prayer on their lips for the Goddess Durga to help them.

:springhead
http://www.indiaamericatoday.com/article/incomplete-habitat-goddess-smiles-kumartuli-artisans-weep

IIT KGP Makes it to URAP's List of Top 500 World Institutes

Kolkata - Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (IIT-KGP) has ranked as the top institution in India by URAP (University Ranking by Academic Performance) Research Laboratory. Also IIT-KGP is the only Indian institution on URAP's top 500 list.
URAP's ranking criteria are based on number of articles, citation, journal impact, journal citation impact and international collaboration. “We are delighted that IIT Kharagpur is ranked the number one institution in the country by URAP. This is a wonderful acknowledgment of the quality of research and academics and significant impact that our faculty, students and alumni are making in the country and around the world," said Arjun Malhotra, Chairman of IIT-KGP’s Vision 20-20 initiative and a distinguished alumnus of IIT-KGP.
The objective of the Vision 20-20 initiative is to transform IIT-KGP to become one of top 20 institutions in the world in the next 20 years. "IIT-KGP, through its Vision 20-20 project, aims to be among the top ranking institutions in the world in the field of science and technology in the next 20 years. It has 6 transformation themes - faculty and students, excellence, research excellence, industry linkages, funding, brand building-visibility-communication, governance and administration," said P. P. Chakrabarti, the newly confirmed Director, IIT-KGP.
IIT-KGP has also fared well from India in other research and publications based rankings like Leiden and SIR Global. The reason seems to be high volume and high impact publications by IIT-KGP faculty and research scholars. Says Vinod Gupta, a dedicated alumnus and founder of the Vinod Gupta School of Management at IIT-KGP, "IIT KGP is not only the oldest IIT ... but also the only IIT to offer over 35 specialties. First one to offer business school, law school, medical school and soon language school. IIT KGP is more like MIT, while others have lagged behind."
URAP Research Laboratory at Informatics Institute of Middle East Technical University, Turkey, has been publishing world university rankings since 2010. Other Indian institutes which fared well are University of Delhi, Benares Hindu University and IIT Mumbai. But none of these institutes have figured in URAP’s top 500 rankings.

 : springhead
http://www.indiaamericatoday.com/article/iit-kgp-makes-it-uraps-list-top-500-world-institutes

Hagel: Defense Department Has Options for Obama on Syria

Abroad A Military Aircraft - Shortly after takeoff on the first leg of his second official trip to the Asia-Pacific region, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel joined a video teleconference with President Barack Obama’s senior national security advisors that focused on the deadly situation in Syria.
In the latest tragedy in the stricken nation, more than 1,000 men, women and children died in what may have been a chemical weapons attack on its own citizens by the government of President Bashar Assad. The United Nations and others are investigating the attacks.
After leaving Hawaii, the first stop on his trip, Hagel spoke today with reporters who are traveling with him to Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines.
“The president has asked the Defense Department for options. {As] always, the department is prepared, has been prepared, to provide ranges for all contingencies for the president of the United States, and we’ll continue to do that,” Hagel said.
“We’re dealing with a very serious issue,” the secretary added. “We are working with our international partners, the international community [and] the United Nations. We are looking at every option.”
Referring to an interview that Obama gave Chris Cuomo on CNN about Syria, Hagel said the president framed the situation there “exactly right” when he said the United States must be part of the international community in its response to the actions in Syria.
As the president noted, the secretary said, the United States must consider its long-term objectives, its long-term interests, and its objectives for influence and outcomes in deciding upon any response.
“The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for all contingencies, and that requires positioning our forces [and] positioning our assets to be able to carry out whatever options the president might choose,” Hagel said.
“On the specific option of military use or force in response to what we will determine at some point here very shortly what did happen, and we’re still assessing that,” he added. “I think the range of military options is always part of the range of options the president has.”
Hagel said he thinks the international community is moving quickly to get the facts and the intelligence right about what happened in Syria so a decision can be made swiftly about how to respond.
“If, in fact, this was a deliberate use and attack by the Syrian government on its own people using chemical weapons, there may be another attack coming,” he said. “A very quick assessment of what happened and whatever appropriate response should be made.”

: springhead:
http://www.indiaamericatoday.com/article/hagel-defense-department-has-options-obama-syria

Food Security Bill passed in LS but Sonia Gandhi taken ill

yet another promise"...even as this claim hit the Facebook page of the Youth Congress platform (Yuva Desh) on Monday evening, the Congress President Sonia Gandhi was taken ill in Parliament and rushed to AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences) in New Delhi.
Son Rahul Gandhi and Union Minister Kumari Shelja rushed a visibly unwell Gandhi to AIIMs where senior Congress leaders including the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reached to monitor teh situation. Gandhi was kept under medical observation at AIIMS.
After stepping out of the hospital, Congress leader Ambika Soni said, "she is fine." Another leader assured that Gandhi will attend Parliament on Tuesday.
According to hospital sources, she has moderate fever. A team of specialists is attending to her and have started doing blood tests and other tests. An ECG was conducted on arrival but the report was normal. She had viral fever since Sunday night and doctors examined her at her home, sources said.
The Lok Sabha passed the historic National Food Security Bill with an overwhelming majority on Monday. Speaking during the debate in the Lower House, Sonia Gandhi said, "Our goal in the near future should be to wipe out hunger and malnutrition." She said that "it is time to tell the country and the world that India can feed its people."
In response to whether the Bill will be in favor of the farmers, she said that it was the Congress’s policy to always prioritize agriculture and farmers and that remains unchanged. “This Bill will also empower women self help groups and ensure midday meals for children in 12 lakh schools,” she said during the Lok Sabha debate after which she complained of uneasiness and left the House.

IIT KGP Ready to Roll out India's First Robotic Car by 2014

Kolkata - India’s first fully operational self-driving car will debut soon, thanks to scientists from the Indian Institute of Technology in Kharagpur (IIT KGP). Well past the design stage, the Eklavya 2.0 should be ready to drive - without a driver at the helm - by early next year.
According to Srinivas Reddy, team leader of the car project, three kinds of operations are being looked at: mining, agriculture and automobiles. The first two applications will be fully automatic, but as a driverless automobile, the Eklavya 2.0 will operate like a normal car with a human being at the wheel, which can be switched into auto mode, said Reddy.
Driverless cars operate using computer programs, cameras, radar sensors and global positioning systems (GPS). Self-driving cars will be far safer than vehicles with human beings at the wheel, as, “Ninety percent of road accidents happen due to human errors,” noted Reddy. The reaction time of a machine is far less than that of a driver, Reddy pointed out, saying that the Eklavya 2.0 will have a “much lower accident rate” than a traditional car with a driver.
Reddy also noted that Indian cities will present unique challenges to the driverless car due to poorly maintained roads and crowded traffic conditions, which the team is factoring into the programming of the vehicle.
The Eklayva 2.0 recently participated in the Intelligent Ground Vehicle Competition in the US at Oakland University in the state of Michigan, and scored near the top. It was the fifth fastest to complete the 600 foot long course in the basic challenge and ninth fastest in the advanced challenge, out of the 56 participating teams from all over the world.
The high-tech car can perform many other unique feats. "It can go to places where humans may be unable to drive and also pick up environmental cues like noxious gases with the help of sensors," said Professor Debashish Chakravarty of the Department of Mining Engineering at IIT KGP.
Chakravarty is mentoring the project along with over 30 undergraduate and postgraduate students that are specializing in computer science, mechanical, electronics, electrical or mining engineering. The car has been under development by the Autonomous Ground Vehicle Research Group (Team AGV) of IIT KGP since 2011.
Funded largely by the Institute, the project is estimated to cost around $227,411 (Rs 1.5 crore). Perception, navigation and control features are currently being developed for testing in a full-sized car in simulation. Google Worldwide has also developed a similar car, but once IIT Kharagpur puts this car on the road, it will definitely add a new dimension to Asia's world of automated automobile technology.

 : springhead
http://www.indiaamericatoday.com/article/iit-kgp-ready-roll-out-indias-first-robotic-car-2014