THE STATESMAN’S HERALD

THE AIRFORCE SCHOOL

YOUNGSTATESMAN’SMEET

cover story

PG 1 : NON ALIGNMENT MOVEMENT

EVOLUTION & IMPACT

Of Ambedkar's visions and reality // PG 2

Economic development top priority post-independence : India//pg 5

The Bandung Conference held in Indonesia in 1955 was one of the most significant landmarks in the formation of third world countries and the Non-Aligned Movement. Five leaders of countries that had recently gained freedom formed an alliance with other African and Asian countries. The main motive of the conference was to have good economic and political relations with these countries and put an end to colonialism and neocolonialism, giving rise to better forms of governance such as democracy. Josif Tito from Yugoslavia, Jawaharlal Nehru from India, Gamel Nasser from Egypt, Ahmed Sukarno from Indonesia and Kwane Nkumrah from Ghana started the movement which, later on, came on to a higher pedestal. At Belgrade the First Summit Conference was held in 1961 which marked the beginning of the Non-Aligned Movement. Afghanisthan, Algeria, Yemen, Myanmar, Cambodia, Sri Lanka,

Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq and many other countries participated in it.

The Non-Aligned Movement stood for non-aggression, non-interference, respect for independence, equality and peaceful co-existence. Many believed that this movement was formed as an “Anti-West” movement and was made only to go against the United States as most of the members were apprehensive of allied economic powers. But the main agenda of this movement was to create a neutral stand for countries that felt the need to stop Cold War. It was also the first time small countries had been represented at such a large forum. This movement had huge support, comprising of 55% of the world’s population. Since its inception, this movement has waged an unending battle to help countries oppressed under colonialism and neocolonialism find the path of self-

determination which would finally lead to independence.

During the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement was in full swing. It made policies for co-operation, especially those policies that provided mutual benefit to all involved. It was the voice of support for developing nations. NAM also played a decisive role in various ideological conflicts right from the beginning, including opposition to apartheid, which was when Nelson Mandela got involved with this movement.

The Non-Aligned Movement was definitely a much needed organization at that period of Cold War. It brought out the beacon of hope for a better world in the future. Without this, the world would have been bi-polar; splitting the entire earth in two ways and World War III would have been the outcome.

Non-Aligned Movement- The aim for a multi-polar world

M. S. Ananya

A movement that gave the Cold War another dimension and a neutral path for countries unwilling to choose side. M.S. Ananya reflects on the everlasting impact of the movement.

In his memorandum to the Dhar Commission (dated 14 October 1948) , Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar said that he was in support of the formation of linguistic states, especially the formation of the Marathi-majority state- Maharashtra. Due to inadequate information, some might consider him to be biased and think of him as a person who unjustly supported the Marathis. However, on further analysis, we find that his ideas were carefully calculated and were not subject to any bias. He proposed the division of Maharashtra into four parts- Maharashtra city state, constituting of the city of Bombay and some additional area so as to ensure the stronghold of this state; Western Maharashtra, constituting of Thana, Kolaba, Ratnagiri, Poona, North and South Satara, Kolapur and the Marathi speaking territories given to Karnataka; Central Maharashtra, constituting of Dang, east and west Khandesh, Nasik, Ahmadnagar and six other areas along with the Marathi speaking territories given

to Telangana, and finally, Eastern Maharashtra, constituting of 8 areas along with Marathi-speaking territories given to Hindi states. This was a reasonable proposal as it would keep most of the people of similar language in the same area, would ensure easy administration and would also solve the problem of Bombay, which is a mixed state. While deciding the constituent areas of each state, especially Bombay, he also considered the financial status and the political representation of the area. His proposal was made after careful consideration and thus, would not have hurt the sentiments of any linguistic group. Like in the case of Bombay, he took into consideration, the number of ministers from each linguistic group, and then deduced that Bombay should be a separate state. In his efficient proposal, he also considered the problem of the North. He suggested the division of Uttar Pradesh into three states, each having a population of roughly two crores. This was a very well

thought out point as it would ensure that no state suffered due to over-population. He also said that Bihar should be divided as it had a very large population which is difficult to administer. The division of other states was also proposed.All this suggests that Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar’s proposal was not only about Maharashtra, but about India as whole. It was thus, a proposal worthy of consideration. It could probably help strengthen the Indian democracy and untie India instead of dividing it. Thus, it answered a question many had in mind. This was proven by another point, which stated that to maintain Indian unity, the official language of all the states should be same as that of the central government.Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s proposal has brought in a new angle to the debate about the format of linguistic states in India. However, whether his proposal will be fully accepted, partially accepted or rejected; only time will tell.

Of Ambedkar’s visions and reality

Kuhikaa Vaishnavee Arora

Dr. Ambedkar’s memorandum to the Dhar commission brought new dimensions to the state reorganizational basis. Kuhikaa Vaishnavee Arora opines.

Mr Ajit Singh of the Akali Dal and the defence minister, Mr.C.D. Deshmukh were of the opinion that states should be divided on linguistic lines as it would help to preserve religious purity. Mr. Ajit Singh elaborated on his opinion by saying that states should be divided on linguistic lines and people who follow Sikhism and the Punjabis should live together in

Punjab. This would ensure that all people who follow the same religion stay together, thus helping in retaining the purity of the religion and of the culture. Mr. Deshmukh believed that if the people are divided, then the people of the same religion will be segregated. This would lead to disintegration of the people and would ultimately disconnect them.

The debate about the division of states and the parameters for the same has been going on since 1920, when the Indian National Congress decided to include linguistic reorganisation of states as one of their political goals. The Linguistic provinces Commission (Dhar Commission) and the JVP Committee have also been involved in the debate.Every member involved in the discussion ultimately wanted the betterment of the people and worked for it. Following the lead of the committees stimulated earlier, the States Reorganisation commission also discussed the effect that the division would have on people and their religion. The committee, like Mr. Ajit Singh and Mr. C.D. Deshmukh was also concerned about the well being of the people, but the discussion in the committee about religion specifically, has not taken place yet.Whether the committee will be able to decide the parameters of division of states or their end will be similar to that of the committees simulated previously, is a question that will remain unanswered till the committee ends and the fate of the people and their religion is decided.

Effect Of Linguistic Division On Religious Purity

Kuhikaa Vaishnavee Arora

States should be divided on the basis of language to help retain the purity of religion. Kuhikaa Vaishnavee Arora reports from the States reorganisation Commission.

Mr. Ivan Smirnov states that communism can be achieved without going through the phase of capitalism even though Russia in its current state is economically unstable.

Mr. Smirnov further stated his views by expressing the need to stabilize the countries. He further elaborated on the impending need of militarization and there is a need to use the Tsar’s generals to achieve Military stabilization. He said that the ultimate goal for the Unions is to achieve communism and capitalism is not the answer to the problems faced currently by the union. He wants The NEP to be scrapped as he believes it to have a lot of loopholes and to be a disgrace to Russia. After the revolution of 1917, the

Battle of Warsaw and the Russian famine of 1921, Russia was left in a state of utter instability both in political and economic factors. The New Economic Policy ushered a partial return to the market economy and a period of stability. It was primarily an agricultural based policy. The Bolsheviks viewed traditional village life as conservative and backward. The old way of village life was reminiscent of the Tsarist Russia that had supposedly been thrown out with the October Revolution. With the NEP, which sought to repudiate the “old ways”, methods were put in place that promoted the pursuit by peasants of their self-interests. However, the state only allowed private landholdings because the idea of collectivized farming had met with much opposition. This increased

the peasants’ incentive to produce, and in response production jumped by 40% after the drought and famine of 1921–22.

These statements were reacted to by many in the council. When he was asked by Mr. Grigory Petrovsky about the loopholes he replied that he has 31 amendments to the NEP. The statements were rebutted by Mr. Pakhomov and Mr. Kalinin both stating that the NEP was successful in its cause.

We have to now wait and see how these varied reactions conclude at the end of the council. How will Russia hope to achieve communism without going through the phase of capitalism?

Ivan Nikitich Smirnov : Communism can be achieved through Marxist theories

Abhimanyu Vishnoi

Committee on formation of USSR discusses shift to Communism through Marxist Theories. Abhimanyu Vishnoi reports.

The five Colombo powers-India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon - made a mark as they highlighted the issue of brutal colonial suppression. Economic co-operation turned out to be the most common request by all countries. Regional peace and stability are essential for the development of countries that have been under colonial rule for a long time.

The Bandung conference was a conference where states could cast aside their differences and focus on their mutual political and economic interests. The break from colonialism has left these states behind in economic advancement compared to the Western states. Meaningful economic co-operation should promote mutual gains for all of the participating countries

and provide both an inter Asian-African market and develop a joint economic strategy.Colonial rule has definitely caused grievous repercussions but what we need to speculate about is that without the advent of foreign rule, would the newly independent countries be as civilized?

Economic development top priority post-independence:India

Amrita Yadav

India and other Afro-Asian countries rallied in favor of united economic and political progress after liberation from colonial suppression. Amrita Yadav reports from the Bandung Conference.

 

Mookerji expressed his concern about the nation losing its unity as discussions upon the question of reorganization of states based on linguistic lines commenced in the State Reorganisation Commission.

Asserting that India is a diverse country striving for togetherness, Mookerji urged the committee to consider the dissatisfaction that would be fostered if every linguistic group asked for a separate state, for so many of them exist. He was

supported by Prime Minister Nehru,

who said that it is unconstitutional to give some regions what they want, and not others. Mookerji and other leaders suggested that other important factors need to be taken into consideration while reorganizing states, such as geographical contiguity, economic status as well as population. Leaders such as Kirai Musar pointed out that linguistic division would also lead to “subtle psychological exclusion of minority”, with R.V Shetty

adding that linguistic minorities are excluded from socioeconomic growth, rendering it an ineffective basis of division.

Conversely, defense minister C.D Deshmukh argued that reorganization of states based on language will bring the country closer as language closely relates to culture. This view gathered support as N.R Naidu pointed out that people speaking one language can have better communications, thus enabling educational and social progress as well as ease of administration.

Under the British Raj, the nation was faced with vast exploitation of natural and human resources that left its reserves ransacked. The educational backwardness and situation of poverty is a challenge the nation must overcome. It had identified a key reason behind its subjugation as the “divide and rule” policy followed by the English, and has strived to ensure national unity. Facing grave challenges, the State Reorganization Committee attempts to strike a balance between cultural and national identities, while ensuring socioeconomic progress. Whether the committee will be able to establish consensus on how to tackle these issues while taking the People of the country forward collectively, remains to be seen.

Leaders express concern over linguistic division hindering national unity

Sanya Sharma

Sanya Sharma reports on discussion about linguistic parameters of state reorganization.

In the opening speech of the defense, the council questioned the neutrality of the Israeli judicial system in reference to the fact that 76% of the Israeli population is Jewish which clearly shows the Jewish dominance in Israel.The whole debate evolved through different arguments. The prosecution quoted that with reference to allegations imposed by the defense in their opening speech, it would appoint non Jewish judges so that the trial is neutral and the allegations of the defense can come to rest. Hence, questioning the neutrality of its own judiciary and thus making their stand much

weaker in the trial.

Israeli government, as they pointed out, always stood by their point that they have an unbiased and idealistic judiciary and convinced Belgian government about the suitability of their respective judicial system for the Eichmann trial. The Belgian government believes that Israel, with a population dominated by Jews, the trial will somehow be biased towards the Jewish community and hence this trial, in international interest will not be fair.The statement of the prosecution was objected upon by both judges and the defense council. The

jury questioned that if the Israeli judiciary system follows the Israeli law mandate then how does it matter if the jury is Jewish or non Jewish and how can the trial be biased or unbiased. To which the prosecution responded that ‘the Jewish judges can be biased’. Thus contradicting itself on the neutrality of the judiciary and stating that the Israeli judicial system is not immune to the racial, ethnic bias.

The Eichmann trial: neutral or biased

Paribhasha Yadav

The Eichmann trial questions the neutrality of Israeli judiciary system. Paribhasha Yadav reports.

The world waits as the trial evolves through converging fatalisms of neutrality and conviction.

The people suffering from the radiations from the Chernobyl accident are seeing the toughest times anyone could see. This Chernobyl accident will be the most serious accident in the history of nuclear industry. The explosion that occurred on April 26 1986 in one of the reactors of nuclear power plant i.e., unit 4, led to huge amounts of radioactive materials being released into the environment and a radioactive cloud spread over much of Europe as well. People were exposed to radiation both directly from the radioactive cloud and the radioactive

materials deposited on the ground or breathing contaminated air. One person was killed immediately and a second dies in hospital soon after as a result of injuries received. A large number of solutions were proposed in the committee by victims, medical practitioners and authorities. A look was taken into the past mistakes and efforts that need to be made for later future. Ukraine authority 11 says that the effect to radioactive material shall lessen with time and so commercial building of infrastructure that will take long will lead to wastage of economy. On the other hand the

soviet authority 6 said that funds were required to clean up the area. “Affected people in the Chernobyl accident need to be referred as survivors and not victims.”, said The Soviet Medical Practitioner 2. Evacuation of the affected people was advised but the US medical practitioner 6 stated that recognition of the accident was the initial step. Some believed that psychological balance was more imperative than medical care, they advised moral support and counselling.All the suggestions that came in were encountered or agreed.

“Differentiate between survivors and victims.”: says The Soviet Medical Practitioner 2

Avni Vishnoi

They try to look into the accident with a positive thought to overcome the situation. Reports Avni Vishnoi

Mikahil Vetoshkhin in a discussion with USSR committee on the New Economic Policy stated that the new economic policy is a bad translation of the Marxist theories.

In further interaction with press Mr. Mikhail said that. ‘Lenin has just blindfolded led the Empire and is responsible for all the atrocities happened so far. He has just the support of the common people but he and his party can be a potential threat to the future of the coming union.’ On begin asked if he is against New Economic Policy; and his view on the same, he answered ‘The policy lasted to famines and different things is just a bad translation of the Marxist Theories.’

Economic Policy of Soviet Russia proposed by Vladimir Lenin, who called it “State Capitalism”. Lenin

stated that a capitalist oriented economic policy deemed necessary after the Russian Civil war of 1917-22; because economics of the country was completely ruined and therefore it was unstable. His New Economic Policy focuses on Economic Reforms; which were aimed to take a step back from central planning and allow the economy to become more independent and stable. He also has a focus on Labor Reforms; which tied labor to productivity, incentivizing the reduction of costs and the redoubled efforts of labor, along with those labor unions also become independent civic organizations.

Upon Mr. Mikhail’s statement the committee as such didn’t have much of a reaction; but Mr. Ivan Smirnov, as evident from his reaction was very much in favor

of the statement. He further went on to say that the Policy had many flaws and loopholes present; he also mentioned that he had 31 amendments for the same.

On a note of conclusion, the points pressed against the policy were targeted because of their association with Mr. Lenin; secondly, as said by Mr. Ivan Smirnov, they were loopholes and flaws in the policy and that he had drawn 31 amendments for the same. Well, I think there is no thing as a perfect policy and each policy however utopian in nature can not be perfect. Therefore suggesting something as a “perfect policy can’t exist and the delegates instead of accusing each other should come together and ponder over points of convergence to form a new policy, to counter the “imperfect and a policy of flaws”.

‘New Economic Policy a bad translation of the Marxist theories’ says Mikhail Vetoshkhin

Deep Chakraborty

Deep Chakraborty reports through the converging paradigm of the New Economic Policy

On April 28th 1986 The Soviet Union announced that there has been an accident at a nuclear power plant in the Ukrainian SSR and that ‘’aid is being given to those affected.’’ However the two-day delay and the 48 hours that were taken to organize the evacuation of Pripyat suggest that Moscow remained ignorant of events at Chernobyl for some time after they occurred.United States Medical Practitioner (8) in the meeting stated that “Soviet Union has deliberately downplayed the disaster within the country and has also delayed evacuation; in process, inhabitants of the region have been exposed to alarmingly high levels of radiations”. In evidence of same a British reporter returning from Kiev reported seeing no activity in the area that

would suggest any alarm. The first official disclosure of a nuclear accident ever by the Soviet Union came hours after Sweden, Finland and Denmark reported abnormally high radioactivity levels in their skies. Swedish Embassy officials said that the Soviet authorities had denied knowledge of any problem until the Government made the official announcement. A Swedish diplomat reported that he telephoned three Soviet Government agencies - the State Committee for Utilization of Atomic Energy, the Ministry of Electric Power and the State Committee for Safety in the Atomic Power Industry -asking them to explain the high readings over Scandinavia, and also said that whoever was responsible for the spread of radioactive material

was not observing international agreements requiring warnings and exchanges of information about accidents.This issue was brought up and its consequences were discussed which varied from consumption of radioactively affected food items, environmental destruction evident by ‘Red Forests’ in the region, further, a representative noted that previous nuclear catastrophes like Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan may lead to panic in the people of the affected area due to misinformation.

While first actions should constitute immediate aid and evacuation to the affected people, the position of USSR needs to be clarified in accordance to the following evidences.

United States medical practitioners blame USSR of downplaying the disaster.

Natasha Singh

Mishap acknowledged only after rising radioactivity levels spread to neighboring areas. Position of USSR questioned after Chernobyl accident, Natasha Singh reports.

THE INTERNATIONAL PRESS

Head, International Press : Pallav Kumar SinghEditor, International Press : Rukma Singh

Creative Editor : Paritosh AnandStudent Head : Mohit MukhiCo-ordinator : Ravleen Kaur

ReportersParibhasha Yadav

MS AnanyaGoutam Raveri

Abhimanyu VishnoiDeep Chakraborty

Natasha SinghSanya SharmaAvni VishnoiAmrita Yadav

Kuhikaa V. AroraGayatri Mehr

PhotographersKushagra Sengar

Hardik PuriKartik RustagiVaibhav ChughDamis Parvaiz

Uday RanaNainika Chadha

Shrey Goyal