Showing posts with label BURNING TOPICS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BURNING TOPICS. Show all posts

Sunday, 16 March 2014

THE HISTORY OF CRIMEA !!

It is important to understand the history of Crimean peninsula if we want to understand the current context as to what is happening as far as Ukrainian crisis is concerned !

With its strategic position dominating the Black Sea and its unstable ethnic mix, it’s not surprising that the Crimea is often called a tinderbox. It has long been central to Russia’s sense of itself as a great naval power — even during the past two decades when the peninsula has formally belonged to Ukraine, a separate country.

After the break-up of the Soviet Union, arguments over the division of the Black Sea Fleet between Russia and the fledgling Ukrainian state were seen as likely to spark a war.

  The Russians kept their ships at Sevastopol,a port in Crimea. Russian sailors and retired naval families enjoyed the sunshine and kept the base as a down-at-heel Soviet theme park. Ukraine was too poor, too corrupt and too disorganised to change the status quo.

Last month’s unexpected Ukrainian revolution and Vladimir Putin’s swift response crushed the old certainties. What is clear is that Mr Putin’s coup de force will strike a chord among many Russians, who have never reconciled themselves to the loss of a territory so intimately entwined with their history.

It was here that Saint Vladimir was baptised in 988, thus binding the early Russian state to Christianity. During the Crimean War of the 1850s, when Britain and France were keen to protect the Ottoman Empire from Russia’s growing power, the port of Sevastopol was besieged for 11 months until the garrison surrendered. In the Second World War, the port held out against Hitler’s troops and aircraft for 247 days, long enough to impose a critical delay in the Nazi advance on Stalingrad. For that defence, Sevastopol was honoured with the Soviet title of “hero city”

Today the population is almost 60 per cent Russian — the only part of Ukraine with a Russian majority. Twenty-four per cent are Ukrainian and 12 per cent Crimean Tatars, descendants of a once powerful Muslim khanate who were expelled by Stalin for collaboration with the Germans and then allowed to return under Mikhail Gorbachev.

To this day politics is coloured by the battles of the Second World War and the rival Russian and Ukrainian narratives. For many Russians, Ukrainian nationalism is fatally infected by the legacy of Stepan Bandera, who declared an independent Ukraine after the Nazi invasion in 1941 and co-ordinated Ukrainian support for the Wehrmacht against the Red Army. That is why Russian propaganda describes the protesters who forced out President Yanukovych as “fascists” and “Nazis”.

None of this would have any consequence today but for a bizarre act by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev who “gave” the Crimea, previously part of Russia, to Ukraine in 1954 — a meaningless gesture at the time, since both republics were part of the USSR. Khrushchev, who began his working life in the coal fields of Eastern Ukraine, was eventually toppled for his many hare-brained schemes. 

Nikita Khrushchev
But who could have imagined that his thoughtless signature on a piece of paper would give Moscow, 60 years later, the chance to start a new war in the Crimea?


*******************************************************************
  • 1783: Russia annexed Crimea.
  • 1853: The Crimean War began, lasting three years. Russia lost to an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain and Sardinia. Crimea remained part of Russia.
  • 1917: Crimea briefly became a sovereign state before becoming a base for the White Army of anti-Bolshevik forces in the Russian War.
  • 1921: The peninsula, now called the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, became part of the Soviet Union.
  • 1942: Nazi Germany took control of Crimea.
  • 1944: Joesph Stalin forcibly deported all Muslim Tatars, a group of 300,000 who had lived on the peninsula for centuries, due to members’ alleged cooperation with Germany during World War II. Many returned to Crimea in the 1980s and 1990s.
  • 1945: After World War II, the autonomous Soviet republic was dissolved and Crimea became a province of the Soviet Union called the Crimean Oblast.
  • 1954: Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev transferred the Crimean Oblast to Ukraine. It’soften reported that it was a gesture of goodwill from Khrushchev, who had Ukrainian roots.
  • 1991: The Soviet Union collapsed. Many expected President Boris Yeltsin, the new president of the Russian Federation, to take Crimea for Russia. But he didn’t bring it upduring negotiations with Ukraine.
  • 1997: Ukraine and Russia signed a treaty that allowed Russia to keep its fleet in Sevastopol. The agreement’s since been extended, so the fleet is set to remain there until at least 2042.

Thursday, 1 August 2013

What was the Sri Krishna Committee up with regards to Telangana ?




United Andhra Pradesh with constitutional empowerment of Telangana ‘best way forward' 


Srikrishna Committee says separate Telangana is ‘second best option' if unavoidable & all three regions agree





The Srikrishna Committee has favoured maintaining the status quo of a united Andhra Pradesh and described the demand for a Telangana State as the “second best option.”

In its report, the Committee found the option of a united Andhra Pradesh the “most workable” in the circumstances and in the best interests of the social and economic welfare of people.
“In this option, it is proposed to keep the State united and provide constitutional/statutory measures to address the core socio-economic concerns about the development of the Telangana region,” it said.

The report was submitted to Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram on December 30,2010
  


The 461-page report lists six options —
(I) maintaining the status quo;
(II) bifurcation of the State into Seemandhra and Telangana, with Hyderabad as a Union Territory, and the two States developing their own capitals in due course; 

(III) bifurcation of the State into the Rayala-Telangana and coastal Andhra regions, with Hyderabad being an integral part of Rayala-Telangana; 

(IV) bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telangana, with an enlarged Hyderabad metropolis as a separate Union Territory; 

(V) bifurcation of the State into Telangana and Seemandhra as per the existing boundaries, with Hyderabad serving as the capital of Telangana, and Seemandhra having a new capital; and

(VI) keeping the State united by simultaneously providing certain definite constitutional/statutory measures for socio-economic development and political empowerment of the Telangana region — creation of a statutorily empowered Telangana Regional Council.


The Committee found the fifth option the second best,” with a rider that separation “is recommended only in case it is unavoidable and if this decision can be reached amicably among all the three regions.”

Considering the option of bifurcating the State into Telangana and Seemandhra as per the existing boundaries, the Committee felt that the continuing demand for a separate Telangana had some merit,and “is not entirely unjustified.” In case, this option was exercised, the apprehensions of the coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema people and others who settled in Hyderabad and other districts of Telangana about their investments, property, livelihood and employment would need to be absolutely addressed.


“Considering all aspects, the Committee felt that while the creation of a separate Telangana would satisfy a large majority of people from the region, it will also throw up several other serious problems. Therefore, after taking into account the pros and cons, the Committee did not think it to be the most preferred, but the second best option,” the report said.


*Maintaining the status quo was the least-favoured option.

*It also found the second and third options “not practicable.”

*The Committee felt that the fourth option of bifurcating Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telangana, with an enlarged Hyderabad metropolis as a separate Union Territory, was likely to meet with stiff opposition from the Telangana protagonists, and it might be difficult to reach a political consensus on making this solution acceptable to all.

*On the sixth option of keeping the State united, the Committee said it could be done through the establishment of a statutory and empowered Telangana Regional Council with adequate transfer of funds, functions and functionaries. “The Regional Council would provide a legislative consultative mechanism for the subjects to be dealt with by the Council.”


The Committee felt that with firm political and administrative management, it should be possible to convince the people of the importance keeping the State united, as this option would be in the best interests of all, and would provide satisfaction to the maximum number of people.

“It would also take care of the uncertainty over the future of Hyderabad as a bustling educational, industrial and IT hub/destination.”


Dwelling further on the sixth option, it said that for managing water and irrigation resources equitably, a technical body — water management board — and an irrigation project development corporation with an expanded role were recommended. This should meet all the issues raised by the Telangana people satisfactorily, it said. Flagging socio-economic development and good governance as the core issue, the Committee, keeping the national perspective in mind, was of the considered view that “this option stands out as the best way forward.”


The five-member Committee, headed by the former Supreme Court judge, B. N. Srikrishna, was appointed on February 3, 2010. It examined in detail the issues pertaining to the current demand for a separate Telangana as well as the demand for a united State. The Committee examined all aspects of the situation. Keeping in view the local, regional and national perspectives, it gave the six options.


*It examined such parameters as regional, economic and equity analysis, education and health, water resources, irrigation and power development, public employment.
*It also looked into the issues relating to Hyderabad and the sociological and cultural issues.
*In the past 11 months, it consulted representatives of industry, trade, trade unions and organisations of farmers, women and students, and all sections of the people, especially the political parties.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...