Indian removal
Andrew Jackson, from Tennessee, was a forceful proponent of Indian removal. In 1814 he commanded the U.S. military forces that defeated a faction of the Creek nation. In their defeat, the Creeks lost 22 million acres of land in southern Georgia and central Alabama. The U.S. acquired more land in 1818 when, spurred in part by the motivation to punish the Seminoles for their practice of harboring fugitive slaves, Jackson's troops invaded Spanish Florida.
From 1814 to 1824, Jackson was instrumental in negotiating nine out of eleven treaties which divested the southern tribes of their eastern lands in exchange for lands in the west. The tribes agreed to the treaties for strategic reasons. They wanted to appease the government in the hopes of retaining some of their land, and they wanted to protect themselves from white harassment. As a result of the treaties, the United States gained control over three-quarters of Alabama and Florida, as well as parts of Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky and North Carolina. This was a period of voluntary Indian migration, however, and only a small number of Creeks, Cherokee and Choctaws actually moved to the new lands.
In 1823 the Supreme Court handed down a decision which stated that Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands. This was because their "right of occupancy" was subordinate to the United States' "right of discovery." In response to the great threat this posed, the Creeks, Cherokee, and Chicasaw instituted policies of restricting land sales to the government. They wanted to protect what remained of their land before it was too late.
Although the five Indian nations had made earlier attempts at resistance, many of their strategies were non-violent. One method was to adopt Anglo-American practices such as large-scale farming, Western education, and slave-holding. This earned the nations the designation of the "Five Civilized Tribes." They adopted this policy of assimilation in an attempt to coexist with settlers and ward off hostility. But it only made whites jealous and resentful.
Other attempts involved ceding portions of their land to the United States with a view to retaining control over at least part of their territory, or of the new territory they received in exchange. Some Indian nations simply refused to leave their land -- the Creeks and the Seminoles even waged war to protect their territory. The First Seminole War lasted from 1817 to 1818. The Seminoles were aided by fugitive slaves who had found protection among them and had been living with them for years. The presence of the fugitives enraged white planters and fueled their desire to defeat the Seminoles.
The Cherokee used legal means in their attempt to safeguard their rights. They sought protection from land-hungry white settlers, who continually harassed them by stealing their livestock, burning their towns, and sqatting on their land. In 1827 the Cherokee adopted a written constitution declaring themselves to be a sovereign nation. They based this on United States policy; in former treaties, Indian nations had been declared sovereign so they would be legally capable of ceding their lands. Now the Cherokee hoped to use this status to their advantage. The state of Georgia, however, did not recognize their sovereign status, but saw them as tenants living on state land. The Cherokee took their case to the Supreme Court, which ruled against them.
The Cherokee went to the Supreme Court again in 1831. This time they based their appeal on an 1830 Georgia law which prohibited whites from living on Indian territory after March 31, 1831, without a license from the state. The state legislature had written this law to justify removing white missionaries who were helping the Indians resist removal. The court this time decided in favor of the Cherokee. It stated that the Cherokee had the right to self-government, and declared Georgia's extension of state law over them to be unconstitutional. The state of Georgia refused to abide by the Court decision, however, and President Jackson refused to enforce the law.
In 1830, just a year after taking office, Jackson pushed a new piece of legislation called the "Indian Removal Act" through both houses of Congress. It gave the president power to negotiate removal treaties with Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi. Under these treaties, the Indians were to give up their lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for lands to the west. Those wishing to remain in the east would become citizens of their home state. This act affected not only the southeastern nations, but many others further north. The removal was supposed to be voluntary and peaceful, and it was that way for the tribes that agreed to the conditions. But the southeastern nations resisted, and Jackson forced them to leave.
Indian Point As Backdrop
THE small hamlet of Buchanan has become a popular news conference locale in recent months. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, there has been broad public debate about whether the Indian Point nuclear power plant there is a target for terrorism.
Showing at the plant has promised plenty of news coverage, and many politicians have taken the plant's officials to task over various issues, including shutting the plant down. But more and more plant supporters are now accusing politicians of jumping on the Indian Point bandwagon and exploiting the issue for their own political gain.
Central in this backlash is Gavin J. Donohue, executive director of the Independent Power Producers of New York. Mr. Donohue has accused politicians of using the plant as a news conference backdrop and ''inducing hysteria and fear in residents.''
Mr. Donohue, whose trade association represents electric generators and marketers, contended that ''these politicians know very little about a complex issue'' but have simply seized upon it to get themselves some camera time. He called their calls to shut down Indian Point permanently ''a self-serving attempt to take advantage of Sept. 11 by manipulating the fears of Westchester residents.''
''It's political opportunism by politicians who don't know the impact of such a decision,'' said Mr. Donohue. Closing the plant, he contended, would increase electric rates for residents by 40 percent and cost more than 1,500 jobs. It would also delete a tax base of $45 million and $356 million in payroll and expenditures that the plant adds to the local economy, he said, and overtax the state's electric system.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Charles E. Schumer have appeared in front of Indian Point. So have Representatives Nita M. Lowey and Eliot L. Engel, both of whom have advocated closing or decommissioning the plant.
History of India
Later, successive empires and kingdoms ruled the region and enriched its culture - from the Achaemenid Persian empire[1] around 543 BCE, to Alexander the Great[2] in 326 BCE. The Indo-Greek Kingdom, founded by Demetrius of Bactria, included Gandhara and Punjab from 184 BCE; it reached its greatest extent under Menander, establishing the Greco-Buddhist period with advances in trade and culture.
The subcontinent was united under the Maurya Empire during the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE. It subsequently became fragmented, with various parts ruled by numerous Middle kingdoms for the next ten centuries. Its northern regions were united once again in the 4th century CE, and remained so for two centuries thereafter, under the Gupta Empire. This period, of Hindu religious and intellectual resurgence, is known among its admirers as the "Golden Age of India." During the same time, and for several centuries afterwards, Southern India, under the rule of the Chalukyas, Cholas, Pallavas and Pandyas, experienced its own golden age, during which Indian civilization, administration, culture, and religion (Hinduism and Buddhism) spread to much of south-east Asia.
Islam arrived on the subcontinent in 712 CE, when the Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim conquered Sindh and Multan in southern Punjab,[3] setting the stage for several successive Islamic invasions between the 10th and 15th centuries CE from Central Asia, leading to the formation of Muslim empires in the Indian subcontinent, including the Ghaznavid, the Ghorid, the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. Mughal rule came to cover most of the northern parts of the subcontinent. Mughal rulers introduced middle-eastern art and architecture to India. In addition to the Mughals, several independent Hindu kingdoms, such as the Maratha Empire, the Vijayanagara Empire and various Rajput kingdoms, flourished contemporaneously, in Western and Southern India respectively. The Mughal Empire suffered a gradual decline in the early eighteenth century, which provided opportunities for the Afghans, Balochis and Sikhs to exercise control over large areas in the northwest of the subcontinent until the British East India Company[4] gained ascendancy over South Asia.
Beginning in the mid-18th century and over the next century, India was gradually annexed by the British East India Company. Dissatisfaction with Company rule led to the First War of Indian Independence, after which India was directly administered by the British Crown and witnessed a period of both rapid development of infrastructure and economic decline.
During the first half of the 20th century, a nationwide struggle for independence was launched by the Indian National Congress, and later joined by the Muslim League. The subcontinent gained independence from Great Britain in 1947, after being partitioned into the dominions of India and Pakistan. Pakistan's eastern wing became the nation of Bangladesh in 1971.
Central and State Governments Of India
The constitution designates the governance of India under two branches namely the executive branch and the legislative branch. Real national executive power is centered in the Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister of India. The President appoints the Prime Minister, who is designated by legislators of the political party or coalition commanding a parliamentary majority. The President then appoints subordinate ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister. In reality, the President has no discretion on the question of whom to appoint as Prime Minister except when no political party or coalition of parties gains a majority in the Lok Sabha. Once the Prime Minister has been appointed, the President has no discretion on any other matter whatsoever, including the appointment of ministers. But all Central Government decisions are nominally taken in his name.
The constitution designates the Parliament of India as the legislative branch to oversee the operation of the government. India's bicameral parliament consists of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The Council of Ministers is held responsible to the Lok Sabha.
The government can enact laws and ordinances as required for the governance of the country. However, laws and ordinances have to be passed by the legislative branch in order to be effected. Parliament sessions are conducted to discuss, analyse and pass the laws tabled as Acts. Any law is first proposed as a bill in the lower house. If the lower house approves the bill in current form, the bill is then proposed to be enacted in the upper house. If not, the bill is sent for amendment and then tabled again so as to be passed as an Act. Even if the bill is passed in the lower house, the upper house has the right to reject the proposed bill and send it back to the government for amending the bill. Therefore, it can be said that the governance of India takes place under two processes; the executive process and the legislative process. Ideally, the governance cannot be done through the individual processes alone. After the Acts are passed by both the houses, the President signs the Bill as an Act. Thus the legislative branch also acts under the name of the President, like the executive branch.
Ordinances are laws that are passed in lieu of Acts, when the parliament is not in session. When the parliament is in recess, the President assumes the legislative powers of both the houses temporarily, under Part V: Chapter III - Article 335 of the Constitution of India. The government has to propose a law to the President during such periods. If the President is fully satisfied with the bill, and signs the bill, it becomes an ordinance. The powers of ordinances are temporary, and each ordinance has to be tabled in the parliament when the houses reassemble. The President also has the right to withdraw an ordinance.
States in India have their own elected governments, where as Union Territories are governed by an administrator appointed by the central government. Some of the state legislatures are bicameral, patterned after the two houses of the national parliament. The states' chief ministers are responsible to the legislatures in the same way the prime minister is responsible to parliament.
Each state also has a presidentially appointed governor who may assume certain broad powers when directed by the central government. The central government exerts greater control over the union territories than over the states, although some territories have gained more power to administer their own affairs. Local state governments in India have less autonomy compared to their counterparts in the United States and Australia.
Indian Government
The structure of India's federal--or union--system not only creates a strong central government but also has facilitated the concentration of power in the central government in general and in particular in the Office of the Prime Minister. This centralization of power has been a source of considerable controversy and political tension. It is likely to further exacerbate political conflict because of the increasing pluralism of the country's party system and the growing diversity of interest-group representation.
Once viewed as a source of solutions for the country's economic and social problems, the Indian polity is increasingly seen by political observers as the problem. When populist political appeals stir the passions of the masses, government institutions appear less capable than ever before of accommodating conflicts in a society mobilized along competing ethnic and religious lines. In addition, law and order have become increasingly tenuous because of the growing inability of the police to curb criminal activities and quell communal disturbances. Indeed, many observers bemoan the "criminalization" of Indian politics at a time when politicians routinely hire "muscle power" to improve their electoral prospects, and criminals themselves successfully run for public office. These circumstances have led some observers to conclude that India has entered into a growing crisis of governability.
Politics Of India
According to its constitution, India is a "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic." India is the largest state by population with a democratically-elected government. Like the United States, India has a federal form of government, however, the central government in India has greater power in relation to its states, and its central government is patterned after the British parliamentary system. Regarding the former, "the Centre", the national government, can and has dismissed state governments if no majority party or coalition is able to form a government or under specific Constitutional clauses, and can impose direct federal rule known as President's rule. Locally, the Panchayati Raj system has several administrative functions
Criminalisation Of Kerala
Indian Goverment History
The structure of India's federal--or union--system not only creates a strong central government but also has facilitated the concentration of power in the central government in general and in particular in the Office of the Prime Minister. This centralization of power has been a source of considerable controversy and political tension. It is likely to further exacerbate political conflict because of the increasing pluralism of the country's party system and the growing diversity of interest-group representation.
Once viewed as a source of solutions for the country's economic and social problems, the Indian polity is increasingly seen by political observers as the problem. When populist political appeals stir the passions of the masses, government institutions appear less capable than ever before of accommodating conflicts in a society mobilized along competing ethnic and religious lines. In addition, law and order have become increasingly tenuous because of the growing inability of the police to curb criminal activities and quell communal disturbances. Indeed, many observers bemoan the "criminalization" of Indian politics at a time when politicians routinely hire "muscle power" to improve their electoral prospects, and criminals themselves successfully run for public office. These circumstances have led some observers to conclude that India has entered into a growing crisis of governability.
American Economy
The US invaded Iraq on the grounds of weapons of mass destruction, claiming the Saddam Hussein regime was an imminent threat to world security and were sponsoring and supporting terrorism. Of course this turned out to be false, but at least there was the access to Iraqi oil reserves and the significant rebuilding contracts that would go to American contractors, correct? Actually, this didn’t happen either, and the Iraq war fiasco has led to nothing but bloodshed, with no economic advantages arising from invasion.
After the needless destruction of Iraq was completed, the rebuilding effort was to provide employment to American workers and the US economy. But that wasn’t to happen. The projects were outsourced to cheap labour economies to save money, and thanks to NAFTA, any jobs that would’ve been available for American workers were diverted elsewhere. Thus a further betrayal by the current government and another lie to fuel the flames of the Iraqi war effort.
While the cost in human lives can never compare, the US government have spent billions of dollars on the war machine for no reason. Despite the financial gains they may have sought, the US economy is still struggling and the reconstruction contracts have gone to lower labour economies as a result of cost restrictions and international treaty arrangements. For the US people, this represents yet another lie in the Iraq saga, and further undermines the credibility of the current Presidential regime.
Can Women Govern Politics
From September 23, 1953 to July 7, 1954,Sühbaataryn Yanjmaa acted as Chairman of the Presidium of the People's Great Khural of Mongolia making her the first women political ruler in contemporary history (except for queens).
The first elected female political ruler as well as the first woman president in Europe was Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, president of Iceland from August 1, 1980 to August 1, 1996
Since then there have been several women presidents. Currently, Mary McAleese is president of Ireland while Helen Clark is the prime minister of New Zealand. She became the second woman prime minister on December 10, 1999 when she succeeded Jenny Shipley.
Maria Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has been the president of the Philippines since January 20, 2001. She is the second women president of the Philippines
Luísa Dias Diogo is the Prime minister of Mozambique since February 17, 2004. Angela Merkel is the Federal Chancellor of Germany and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is the president of Liberia since January 16, 2006. She is Africa's first elected head of State.
Michelle Bachelet Jeria is the president of Chile from March 11, 2006. Louise Lake-Tack is the Governor-General of Antigua and Barbuda since July 17, 2007 while Yuliya Tymoshenko has served as the prime minister of Ukraine twice, from January 24 to September 8, 2005 and again since December 18, 2007.
So many women in places of power thoughout the world shows that women can succeed in politics. They can govern and do it well. Mary McAleese, president of Ireland, had so much support for a second term that she stood unopposed. No one was willing to bear the cost of competing in an election that would be very difficult to win.
History of Politics
dia as a political force; the North Indian dynasties of the Lodhis, Tughlaqs, and numerous others, whose remains are visible in Delhi and scattered elsewhere around North India, were finally succeeded by the Mughal empire, under which India once again achieved a large measure of political unity. These are certainly the generally accepted contours of Indian history before the advent of colonialism, though specialists are all inclined to write this history with particular emphases and accents.The European presence in India dates to the sixteenth century, and it is in the very early part of the eighteenth century that the Mughal empire began to disintegrate, paving the way for regional states. In the contest for supremacy, the English emerged victors, their rule marked by the conquests at the battlefields of Plassey and Buxar. The Rebellion of 1857-58, which sought to restore Indian supremacy, was crushed; and with the subsequent crowning of Victoria as Empress of India, the incorporation of India into the empire was complete. By the early part of the twentieth century, a nationalist movement had emerged; and by 1919-20, Mohandas Karamchand ('Mahatma') Gandhi had emerged as, if not the virtually undisputed leader of this movement, certainly its most well-known and formidable architect. Successive campaigns had the effect of driving the British out of India in 1947, but not before they had partitioned it, and carved out the Muslim-majority state of Pakistan -- later itself dismembered into Pakistan and Bangladesh..
The first prime minister of independent India was Jawaharlal Nehru, who held office from 1947 until his death in 1964. Apart from a short period of two years from 1975-77, when an internal emergency was imposed by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and constitutional liberties were suspended, India has been a thriving parliamentary democracy. For a capsule political history of India in the post-1947 period, readers are invited to turn to the “Independent India” section of this site, where they will also find other specialized articles, as well as the “Current Affairs” section of MANAS, where readers will be able to find articles on selected political and social phenomena of recent years.
Indian Politics
In Indian politics, there are political parties in which one being pulls all the strings. This affection existed even afore India's independence, if Mahatma Gandhi was the ancestor amount of the Indian Civic Congress until his afterlife in 1948 even admitting he accommodated from the Congress in 1933. Indira Gandhi for some aeon was in complete ascendancy of her party. Her affair was aswell named, Congress (Indira). Shiv Sena is bedeviled by Bal Thakarey. Even if the Shiv Sena won the accompaniment elections in Maharashtra, Bal Thakarey handled the enactment of the accompaniment government but did not accredit himself as the Chief Minister but appointed anyone abroad for this post.
Some of these parties, like the Shiv Sena in which one being pulls all the strings, accept their bastion in the accessible not because of their baton but because of affair ideology. While added parties are absolutely dependable on the account the baton of the affair has in the public. One such affair is Samata Affair and its baton is George Fernandes. Another such affair was Lok Shakti and its baton was Ramakrishna Hegde.
Many of the ample civic parties accept a pre-election acceding with abate parties on collective candidates in some constituencies. This applicant belongs to one of the parties and the added affair supports this candidate. This is done to anticipate a achievability of parties, with accepted civic calendar or accepted accompaniment agenda, appoint their own altered candidates causing the agreeable of the votes of their addition and so accident the constituency to the battling wing.
In Indian backroom there are aswell abounding absolute candidates. These candidates participate in acclamation constituencies apart after the abutment of any party. In actual few cases the beyond parties aswell abutment absolute candidates.
Impending Dangers To India’s Political Survival
Observing Pakistan’s unfolding implosion is prompting a pleasing sensation of Schadenfreude for most Indians. But it is a grave mistake to imagine that the final outcome will not be hazardous for India. Nor is it likely that Pakistan’s leaders, harbouring visceral hatred for Hindu India, will desist from harming it while they themselves self-destruct. Indeed there is a strong likelihood of temptation to aim for an apocalyptic endgame for the region should Pakistan itself truly disintegrate.
Pakistani society is already deeply divided horizontally, with several regions increasingly estranged from the Federal State and vertically, with a vast constituency enraged by their own shockingly greedy and profoundly foolhardy elites. And the ubiquitous Americans will come up with another surreal plan for Pakistan, without ceding control over its armed forces and the nuclear assets they and the Chinese conspired to implant there in order to bring India to heel.
It may also safely be predicted, contrary to the fantasies of the Delhi chatterati and elements of the Indian establishment, that the Anglo-American alliance will greet India’s dire discomfiture with satisfaction. They will welcome the disappearance of the second non-white challenger to their historic global supremacy, accentuated by a deep dislike for Indian sanctimony and a history of ill will. They will certainly expect to pick up some of the pieces of a broken-backed India, reconstituted as querulous independent entities seeking sustenance outside the region.
The historical record of India provides no comfort that such a situation is unlikely to arise. And the internal political and ideological fissures that endured in the past have now re-established deep roots within it. Hindus love quarrelling among themselves and their susceptibility to brainwashing to ensure they do so has few parallels. The most laughable spectacle is Indian Leftists, unashamedly pursuing mammon in the US while feigning deep thought and espousing the Rights of Muslims, though careful to only belabour democratic India and its hapless Hindus.
History of Watsonville , California
Europeans and Mexicans descended upon the region in 1769. They were on a voyage to expand the missions of Baja, CA. One of the first things they noticed were what are now referred to cost redwoods, a very tall type of tree in the area. Three missions sprung up in the area: Mission Santa Cruz, Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, and Mission San Juan Bautista.
When Mexico gained its Independence the land the three missions sat on was granted to citizens of Mexico. Seven "ranchos" were established from the land grant: Bolsa de Pajaro, Bolsa de San Cayetano, Laguna de Calabasas, Los Corralitos, Salsipuedes, San Andres, and Vega del Rio del Pajaro.
During 1848 prospectors flooded the area during the boom of the Gold Rush in the Sierra Mountains. Some had a level of success with finding gold. Those that didn't cashed in on farming due to the population explosion in the region. Land was fairly inexpensive to purchase during this time.
Many ethnic groups came to the region during that time: African Americans, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, and Northern and Southern Europeans. Direct descendants of Californios and Ohlones indigenous to the area, kept a very strong presence.
The history of Watsonville, California involves the city being founded in 1852 then becoming incorporated in 1868. Its name was adopted from a judge by the name of John Watson. The judge brought litigation against Sebastian Rodriguez who owned Rancho Bolsa de Pajaro. When Watson lost the suit against Rodriguez he moved out of the area, but his name stuck as the city's name tag.
Food manufacturing facilities and agriculture of fruit, vegetables, and flowers are still the mainstay of the economy in the city and has been for a century and a half. Potatoes, wheat, and lettuce were some of the most popular crops grown in the region. More than eighty varieties of crops can be produced in the area due to the rich soil.
The Agricultural History Project does much to educate people on how the region has produced crops for more than fifty years. They work to preserve knowledge of prior farming techniques so they can be shared with subsequent generations. Some former facilities that produced frozen vegetables have since moved to Mexico.
Kashmir Divided
Whatever the reasons for this impulsive decision of Pt. Nehru the timing that he chose for or ordering cease fire was wrong, and disadvantaged India. Indian troops had left their defensive positions and were advancing on all fronts. Given some more time they could have cleared major part of the State of the Pak invaders and ended the encirclement of the valley. Nehru perhaps was keen to stop the war immediately because he had contended an international conference at New Delhi to consider the siluation arising out of Dutch aggression against Indonesia which had just wrested freedom from Dutch Colonial Yoke. He wanted to establish his own bona- fides as a man of peace by ending the war over Kashmir which had been forced on India by Pakistan. This conduct of Nehru was in keeping with his reputation of subordinating national interests to his personal whims and craze for international praise. The Cease Fire line which was finalised at a joint military conference of India and Pakistan held at Karachi from July 18 to July 28, 1949, divided the Jammu & Kashmir State roughly into two equal parts. Beginning from near the Siachin Glacier in the North this line runs close to the Srinagar-Leh road near Kargil and then runs along the great Himalayan range dividing Kashmir from Baltistan; then turning South a little it passes near the mouth of the Burzila pass on the Kashmir side. From there it runs along the Western mountains dividing Kashmir from Chilas and Karen unto Uri from where it goes South-West parallel to the river Jehlum and touches the Southern boundary of the state near Bhimber. A major portion of Baltistan excepting Kargil, the whole of Gilgit and a major portion of the Punjabi speaking area of Muzaffarabad Poonch and Mirpur fell on the Pakistan side of the Cease Fire line. The strategic Burzila pass, the only direct link between Kashmir valley and Gilgit, also fell on the Pakistan side. Thus out of six distinct geographical linguistic and cultural regions of the State, three came into the hands of Pakistan. All of them are predominently Muslim. All Hindus including Sikhs in these parts have either been killed or driven out. The remaining three - Jammu, Laddakh and Kashmir valley - lie on the Indian side of the Cease Fire Line. Of these, Kashmir valley alone has a Muslim majority. The remaining two are Hindu and Buddhist majority regions of the State. Thus by proposing the Cease fire and allowing the Pakistani forces to remain in occupation of the Pakistan held areas of the State, the Indian Government virtually accepted a partition of the State. The Cease Fire Agreement did not mention the right of the State Government to administer the areas held by Pakistan or the so-called Azad Kashmir Government. Those areas were left to be administered by the the "Local Authorities" which practically meant the "Azad Kashmir" Government or any other authority sponsored and supported by the Pakistan Government.
The Cease fire resulted in de facto partition of Jammu and Kashmir State. It was the second partition within 16 months of the first partition of India which had divided Punjab and Bengal on the basis of the religion of the people.
Visits our Health Blogs:–
Health Plus Pharmacy - Health Related Terms - Health Related Terms
The East India Company
The East India Company had the unusual distinction of ruling an entire country. Its origins were much humbler. On 31 December 1600, a group of merchants who had incorporated themselves into the East India Company were given monopoly privileges on all trade with the East Indies. The Company's ships first arrived in India, at the port of Surat, in 1608. Sir Thomas Roe reached the court of the Mughal Emperor, Jahangir, as the emissary of King James I in 1615, and gained for the British the right to establish a factory at Surat. Gradually the British eclipsed the Portugese and over the years they saw a massive expansion of their trading operations in India. Numerous trading posts were established along the east and west coasts of India, and considerable English communities developed around the three presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. In 1717, the Company achieved its hitherto most notable success when it received a firman or royal dictat from the Mughal Emperor exempting the Company from the payment of custom duties in Bengal.
The Company saw the rise of its fortunes, and its transformation from a trading venture to a ruling enterprise, when one of its military officials, Robert Clive, defeated the forces of the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj-ud-daulah , at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. A few years later the Company acquired the right to collect revenues on behalf of the Mughal Emperor, but the initial years of its administration were calamitous for the people of Bengal. The Company's servants were largely a rapacious and self-aggrandizing lot, and the plunder of Bengal left the formerly rich province in a state of utter destitution. The famine of 1769-70, which the Company's policies did nothing to alleviate, may have taken the lives of as many as a third of the population. The Company, despite the increase in trade and the revenues coming in from other sources, found itself burdened with massive military expenditures, and its destruction seemed imminent. State intervention put the ailing Company back on its feet, and Lord North's India Bill, also known as the Regulating Act of 1773, provided for greater parliamentary control over the affairs of the Company, besides placing India under the rule of a Governor-General.
Hastings remained in India until 1784 and was succeeded by Cornwallis, who initiated the Permanent Settlement, whereby an agreement in perpetuity was reached with zamindars or landlords for the collection of revenue. For the next fifty years, the British were engaged in attempts to eliminate Indian rivals, and it is under the administration of Wellesley that British territorial expansion was achieved with ruthless efficiency. Major victories were achieved against Tipu Sultan of Mysore and the Marathas, and finally the subjugation and conquest of the Sikhs in a series of Anglo- Sikh Wars led to British occupation over the entirety of India. In some places, the British practiced indirect rule, placing a Resident at the court of the native ruler who was allowed sovereignty in domestic matters. Lord Dalhousie's notorious doctrine of lapse, whereby a native state became part of British India if there was no male heir at the death of the ruler, was one of the principal means by which native states were annexed; but often the annexation, such as that of Awadh [Oudh] in 1856, was justified on the grounds that the native prince was of evil disposition, indifferent to the welfare of his subjects. The annexation of native states, harsh revenue policies, and the plight of the Indian peasantry all contributed to the Rebellion of 1857-58, referred to previously as the Sepoy Mutiny. In 1858 the East India Company was dissolved, despite a valiant defense of its purported achievements by John Stuart Mill, and the administration of India became the responsibility of the Crow.
Kashmir History
The Muslim and Hindu peoples of Kashmir have lived in relative harmony and friendliness since the 13th century when Islam first became the majority religion in Kashmir. The Sufi-Islamic way of life that ordinary Muslims followed in Kashmir complemented the rishi tradition of Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus), leading to a syncretic culture where Hindus and Muslims revered the same local saints and prayed at the same shrines.
Periodically however, there have been rulers and leaders who have had a narrow view of Islam, and have subjected Hindu minorities to great cruelties and discrimination. The current armed secessionist movement in Kashmir mostly derives its inspiration from these people.
A canard is now being spread past few years by the secessionist-terrorists and their sympathizers that in 1990 Kashmiri Pandits left Kashmir willingly, having been "tricked" by then Jammu and Kashmir Governor Jagmohan. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact is that Kashmiri Pandits were driven from their homeland after a campaign of intimidation and harassment was launched against them by the military-wing of the secessionists. Kashmiri Pandits were forced from their hearths and homes at the point of gun. The objective of this ethnic cleansing was to create a minority free Kashmir valley where the goal of Islamization could be easily forced on the ordinary people. The books and articles below will provide you with an in-depth understanding of the genesis of the current political situation in Jammu and Kashmir.
Click here for Advertisement on Blogs
Politics of Change
I am not only fascinated by politics, but by the politics of change, if there is one unchanging motif that runs through the common history of man, it is that everything changes, except change itself. How we change, and its process tells us more about who we are as nations and individuals and it is that fearful but persistent change that tells us not only who we are, but who we were and perhaps who we might be. I know many have distaste to all things political, because of the common association with corruption and scandal which pervades the political society. It is true that politics unfortunately is inhabited by desperate men and women who abuse the power entrusted to them, and many of them, not all of them are circus elephants.
But does that mean one should despair with and ignore politics?
It does surprise me that when I talk to people who are by their own right apathetic towards politics, they consider it to be some new age phenomenon, or when I speak with devout religious persons who consider that politics as it is today was not apparent in the days of the Moses, Mohammed or Guru Nanak. When people ask me why I am so interested in politics, I recall my first lesson in Government and Politics when I was 16, my lecturer Mr. McSweeny, broke politics down to "who gets what says who". Who gets what says who in society and on this planet should be a concern of every man or woman who has a life to lead and a family to feed.
To ignore politics is to test that old French proverb " if you do not do politics, politics will certainly do you". As Aristotle observed, one of the many penalties of refusing to engage in politics is to allow yourself to be ruled be inferior individuals than yourself.
That is why I always pay close attention to the politics of today, simple labels immersed in complex situations always require the closest attention, lest one be girded in the whirlwind of propaganda, where the myths are legion and the truth of the matter very hard to find. Myths are found in conflicts regional or religious, the global market system, which hitherto stands victorious operates under a pretext of myth or confidence, but of course we must be free to interpret the language we hear and the actions we see, but we must always arm ourselves with how and why although rarely are these two propositions ever satisfied in the hearts of men.
History of foot fetish
Having a foot fetish can also be referred to as foot fetishism, foot partialism, foot worship, or podophilia. It is manifested by an acute sexual preference for feet. Moreover, although it is probably the most widespread shape of sexual preference for an otherwise non-sexual object or body part, not even those who practice it are aware of its roots and the signs it has left behind throughout history. Its roots run deeper than one would think, as this fetisch hides a fascinating background.
The side of this preference that is less known to the general public is its apparent growth in relation with the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. It goes back as far as the 16th century (there are various drawings that prove it), and although this is only a hypothesis, it appears that in the writings of the time, foot fetishism became more popular during the syphilis epidemics which took place in the 16th and 19th century, in Europe. Looking at things on a smaller scale (a survey on a period of only 3 decades), it seems that the relatively recent AIDS epidemic also lead to an immense increase in the interest for the foot fetish.
The growing numbers of those sharing this foot fetish has led to the appearance of “foot girls”. They are foot models who act in movies created especially for those with a passion for feet. Such pictures usually contain plenty of focusing on the object of attraction, but a general image of the model is also usually included.
The presence of socks or shoes is optional and widely varied. In addition, the girl might be alone or together with someone else foot worshipping her. More pornographic are those flicks that include trampling, smothering or foot jobs.
Experts have studied in detail the frequency of this fetisch. One study, for example, was carried out by looking at almost four hundred discussion groups over the Internet. It was based generally on how many forums are dedicated to each variation in particular, how many people took part in the discussions and how many messages were sent. Feet, toes and everything associated with them were definitely top of the preference list. It also seemed to come out first among fetisch-related search terms.
Women, as well as men, are likely to share a foot fetish. In fact, it is rather common for women situated in the 20-40 age range simply to adore having their feet caressed (or even licked) during foreplay or during the sexual act as such. Non-sexual objects may carry an amount of appeal greater than you might imagine. As we have said it, you might not even be aware of it, but if you check your preferences, you might “come across” predilections you have kept concealed.
Still sound like a good idea?
"Let’s go back in history. It is possible that if there had been no free speech for [Karl Marx] and the [Communist] Party in Germany during the early 1920s – if their meetings and marches had been stopped – they may not have grown in strength and influence. Denying them an opportunity to propagandise, gain respectability and enter the political mainstream might have thwarted their rise to power. This may have prevented the [Communists] from assuming the government of [Russia]. Without [Lenin] in power, the [Ukranian Genocide] and World War Two may not have happened. Tens of millions of lives may have been saved if the free speech of [Communists] had been suppressed early on.
This is, of course, historical speculation. We don’t know for sure. But it is plausible that “no platform” for [Communists] in the 1920s could have prevented the horrors the [Communists] later perpetrated. On these grounds, I would argue that it would have been justified to deny the [Communist] Party freedom of speech."