Connect with us


Obscure Manipuri Separatists Announce ‘Govt In Exile’ In UK

The dissidents produced documents to show they have been granted political asylum in the UK in August this year.



LONDON (England): Two dissident leaders from Manipur claiming to represent King Leishemba Sanajaoba on Tuesday announced the launch of the “Manipur Government in exile” here in the UK.

Addressing a press conference, Yamben Biren, claiming to be the “Chief Minister of Manipur State Council” and Narengbam Samarjit, claiming to be the “Minister of External Affairs and Defence of Manipur State Council” said they were speaking on behalf of the ‘Maharaja of Manipur’ to formally launch the government-in-exile — “The Manipur State Council”.

Narengbam Samarjit, external affairs minister in the self-declared Manipur State Council, said the exiled government would push for recognition at the United Nations.

We will run the de jure exiled government here […] from today onwards,” he told reporters in London after a declaration of independence first announced in Manipur in 2012 was read aloud.

We will seek recognition from different nations […] to become a (UN) member. We hope many of the countries will recognise our independence.”

Manipur, one of India’s smallest states with a population of around just 2.8 million people, is one of the so-called “Seven Sisters” — a group of restive northeastern states.

The region, encircled by five other countries and connected to the rest of India by a sliver of land arching over Bangladesh, has been wracked by armed conflict and instability.

It has spawned more than 100 militant groups over the decades whose demands range from autonomy to secession.

Violence has been part of daily life for decades in Manipur, which borders Myanmar, with a strong presence of the Indian military.

The state has a strong ethnic mix, and its Meitei, Naga, Kuki and Pangal communities are all deeply committed to preserving their own cultural autonomy.

Its people have also always tended to look eastwards in their search for cultural links.

Samarjit said he hoped the world would support its independence cause.

“We are not free there and our history is going to be destroyed, our culture is going to be extinct,” he warned.

“So the UN should listen […] we raise our voice to the whole world that the people living in Manipur are human beings.”

The High Commission of India did not respond to a request for comment.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


ITBP Jawan Masudul Rehman Kills Five Colleagues, Shoots Self In Chhattisgarh

The ITBP personnel were deployed here to provide security for the road construction work in this area.



NARAYANPUR (Chhattisgarh): At least five personnel of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) were killed and three others injured when an ITBP jawan allegedly fired at his colleagues with his service weapon in Narayanpur district of Chhattisgarh Wednesday morning, police said.

The incident took place at the Kadenar camp of ITBP’s 45th battalion in Narayanpur, located around 350 km from state capital Raipur, according to IG (Bastar range) P. Sundarraj. The injured soldiers have been referred to Raipur by helicopter.

The Kadenar camp lies in Maoist-affected area of Narayanpur district of tribal Bastar region.

The injured were referred to Raipur by helicopter. However, during treatment, another jawan died. SP Mohit Garg has confirmed the incident.

Details About the Jawans:

  1. Constable Masudul Rehman resident Nadia, West Bengal (ACCUSED)
  2. Head Constable Mahendra Singh resident Sandiyar, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh
  3. Constable Surjit Sarkar resident North Shrirampur, Burdwan, West Bengal
  4. Head Constable Daljit Singh resident Jagpur, Ludhiana, Punjab
  5. Constable Bishwarup Mahato resident Khukrampura, Purulia, West Bengal
  6. Constable Begish A.C. Resident Eravattur, Kozhikode, Kerala

Jawans constable Ullas SB Resident Pulimath, Thiruvandrapuram, Kerala, and Constable Sitaram Doon resident Nayabas, Nagaur, Rajasthan have been injured.

As per the sources, a dispute was brewing among ITBP personnel for the last couple of days but it turned violent today and a Jawan opened fire with AK 47 assault rifles at his colleagues. These Jawans belonged to the B company of 45th battalion of ITBP.

The ITBP personnel were deployed here to provide security for the road construction work in this area.

After the incident, IG, SP and other senior police officers rushed to the camp. A helicopter is being sent to ITBP camp for airlifting the injured.

Continue Reading


Bhopal 1984: An Industrial And Political Crime Against Humanity

Thousands died and several thousand others were left handicapped by a gas leak on the intervening night of December 2-3, 1984.



BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh): Thousands of survivors of the Bhopal gas tragedy — known as the world’s worst industrial disaster — continue to face appalling lack of healthcare facilities, activists said on December 2. The statement came on the eve of the incident’s 35th anniversary.

The activists said the “neglect” of the Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre (BMHRC), set up especially for the survivors, was a testimony to the suffering undergone by them over the last 35 years.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy is also known as the Bhopal Disaster in which thousands of people lost their lives.

At around midnight, the chemical reaction started in the Union Carbide (India) Limited factory that culminated in the leakage of deadly Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) gas from one of the tanks of the factory.

As a result, a cloud of gas gradually started descending and enveloping the city in its lethal folds. And the city and lakes turned into a gas chamber.

It was estimated that 40 tonnes of Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) gas leakage took place with some other toxic chemicals from the Union Carbide Factory.

Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) is a chemical that is used in the manufacture of polyurethane foam, pesticides, and plastics. It is handled in liquid form which can be easily burned and explosive. It evaporates quickly in the air and has a strong odour. Its molecular formula is CH3NCO or C2H3NO and its molecular weight is approx. 57.05 g/mol. It is used in the production of pesticides, polyurethane foam, and plastics.

If the concentration of the toxic gas in the air touches 21 ppm (parts per million) then after inhaling it can cause death within minutes. On that day in Bhopal, the level was multiple times higher than that.

Within three days of the leak, thousands of people were found dead primarily due to severe health complications ranging from pulmonary oedema to fatty degeneration of the liver.

As per official data, the leakage of the MIC took place from the Plant Number C. For cooling the plant, methyl isocyanate gas was mixed with water. It led to the generation of volumes of gases and as a result, put tremendous pressure on tank Number 610.  Finally, the pressure of the gas increases and released tonnes of the poisonous gas and diffused a large number of areas. It is said that approximately 5 lakhs people were exposed to the leakage of MIC.

Bhopal’s population in 1984 was around 8.5 lakhs. More than half of the population on the morning after a leakage at midnight were coughing, complaining about itchiness in eyes, skin and were facing breathing problems.

Some people suffered from pneumonia, internal haemorrhage, and death. Even, the people living in villages and slums in the neighbouring areas were affected most.

As with any other city in the world, Bhopal healthcare system did not have the capacity to accommodate half of the city population at one go.

People were not able to breathe and doctors who did not know about the factory gas leak were finding it difficult initially to understand why people are facing so many difficulties.

Also, the doctors had no experience in dealing with the industrial disaster. Doctors were not aware of the symptoms of MIC exposure. It was reported that two government hospitals of Bhopal treated approximately 50,000 patients in two days after the MIC leakage.

The lungs, brain, eyes, muscles, as well as gastrointestinal, neurological, reproductive and immune systems of those who survived, were severely affected.

Dead bodies of humans and animals blocked the street, leaves of the plant turned black and the smell of burning chilli peppers lingered in the air.

Growing foetuses were getting either aborted or severely affected. Fertility in both men and women was affected in one stroke.

Even after months, traces of several toxins were found in the breast milk of mothers and were transmitted to the babies.

After the disaster, the neonatal mortality rate increased by 200% and the stillbirth rate by 300%.

Moreover, even the next generation of children born in the affected areas had twisted arms and legs, extra limbs or body parts, musculoskeletal disorders, brain damage and underweight issues. Some people continue to suffer from chronic health conditions to this day.


Amid all the debates, many people have, unfortunately, forgotten about the 360 tonnes of highly toxic, hazardous waste lying around at the abandoned site of UCIL. Despite numerous steps from the government and protests and litigations by many activists, a permanent solution to the waste problem remains elusive.

The toxic materials on the premises of UCIL continue to pollute soil and groundwater of Bhopal.

Since 2005, the government has considered three different places in India, including Ankleshwar in Gujarat, Nagpur in Maharashtra and Pithampur in Madhya Pradesh for the incineration of packed toxic waste, but could not go ahead because of the strong opposition by the local community.

In 2012, a proposal was made by Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) to airlift the waste to Germany for incineration, but it was later withdrawn.

Even as the authorities struggle to find a permanent solution to the toxic menace, the waste materials at UCIL serve as a constant reminder of the worst industrial disaster known to humankind.

Believe It Or Not, The Congress Govt Of Madhya Pradesh Awarded Another Contract To The Company Soon After The Disaster:

Despite the massive disaster, Union Carbide was not considered a pariah in the government corridors. A civil society group, International Coalition For Justice in Bhopal (ICJIB), formed in Australia for justice to gas victims had accused the Rajiv Gandhi government of entering into commercial transactions with Union Carbide ignoring the suffering of victims.

In a letter, dated 3 December, 1986, the ICJIB said, “It is reported that in 1985, after the occurrence of the Bhopal disaster, Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) was awarded a Rs 100 million (approximately $8 million) contract by the Madhya Pradesh government for the manufacture/distribution of condoms.”

The letter triggered an emergency meeting in the PMO to discuss the allegations. The internal note dated February 9, 1987, and signed by Chaubey admitted that UCIL was indeed doing business in India after Bhopal disaster but the contract was signed prior to the tragedy.

A day later, GK Arora, then additional secretary in the PMO, told the officials that they need to explore options to move UCIL share in condom distribution to some other firms.

“The arrangement existing between the Ministry of Health and the Union Carbide for social marketing of contraceptives should be examined afresh. Efforts should be made to get some other companies including multi-nationals such as Hindustan Lever, ITC, etc, to pick up UCIL’s share,” GK Arora wrote.

How Warren Anderson Escaped From India With Rajiv Gandhi’s Help:

Several Indian and global reports and accounts have suggested that the government of the prime minister of India Rajiv Gandhi was pressured by the US to let Anderson go.

Rajiv Gandhi Freed Warren Anderson: DECLASSIFIED CIA REPORT

Warren Anderson, former chairman of the American parent company Union Carbide Corp responsible for the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, was released after being arrested on December 7 that year on the Central government’s orders to Madhya Pradesh.

This fact about the gas tragedy has emerged from declassified CIA documents dated 8 December 1984: a day after Anderson left India and five days after the deadly methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas leaked from Union Carbide’s Bhopal plant.

The documents show Anderson’s quick release was ordered by the Central government of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. With elections weeks away, the Centre felt the Madhya Pradesh government was overly eager to score political points against Union Carbide. The Centre felt that public pressure after the gas tragedy would force a new government to move cautiously in developing foreign investment with multinationals, especially US companies.

The documents say that with elections nearing, politicians at the state and Centre were trying to deflect blame from themselves to UCIL (Union Carbide India Ltd.) and wring compensation from the parent company.

Moti Singh, who was the District Collector of Bhopal at the time of the gas leak, has said that Anderson was arrested at around 2 pm on December 7 but he was released the same day and flew out of Bhopal in a state government plane to New Delhi.

Singh claims the then Chief Secretary of the state government ordered him to release Anderson.

Congress leader Arjun Singh, who was Chief Minister Madhya Pradesh in 1984, is believed to have ordered his officials to release Anderson as a part of “only implementing” the Centre’s instructions in the gas leak case. 

Anderson was charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, grievous assault and killing and poisoning human beings and animals. A Bhopal trial court convicted eight Indian officials of Union Carbide for their criminal negligence that triggered the world’s worst industrial disaster, but Anderson was not mentioned in the judgment.

Moti Singh, who was the Bhopal collector at the time of Bhopal Gas Tragedy said, “Had we removed the landline phone from his room, Anderson would not have escaped. He possibly made calls to contacts in the US to help him leave India.” According to various reports, the Indian government came under the pressure of the US government and allowed Anderson to escape.

Swaraj Puri, Bhopal’s Superintendent of Police in 1984 claimed, “We arrested him on the basis of a written order but released him on an oral order.” He further added that the oral order came “from higher-ups”.

One of the reasons attributed to Rajiv Gandhi’s soft attitude towards Anderson is “Quid pro quo“.

In 2015 during Monsoon Session, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj made a mention of a little-known name called Adil Shahryar. Adil Shahryar was the son of Rajiv Gandhi’s friend. Shahryar was a childhood friend of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

In the early 80s, Adil Shahryar had a company called Caribbean International Investment Corporation, which had signed a deal with Shapton Producers to supply video cassettes. Instead, he supplied scrap paper. Shahryar had fallen out with the suppliers and had later attempted to set fire to his hotel room. He was taken to custody in Miami in 1981. He was charged with defrauding shipping authorities, American Express International Banking Corporation, he was also charged with use of a firearm. As a result, he was sentenced to 35 years in jail by the US fed court.

In June 1985, Ronald Reagan administration in the United States granted a presidential pardon to Adil Shahryar. Reagan commuted the sentence of 13 people in prison; also important is the fact that Reagan signed the clemency papers of Adil on June 11, 1985; incidentally, it’s the day when Rajiv landed in Washington. Rajiv secured the release of Adil Shahryar in exchange for the gesture of releasing Anderson earlier. A quid pro? It’s to be noted that Rajiv was vocal in saying that “Adil was wrongly imprisoned”.

Sushma Swaraj taunted Rahul Gandhi to ask his mother, “Mumma, Mumma, how my father released the murderer of 15,000 people,” and later on referred to Arjun Singh’s biography in which he wrote about Rajiv Gandhi whispering in his ear to allow Anderson to go and that what he was told will always remain secret and vanish with his death (Mere saath chita me bhasm ho jayega).

Sushma Swaraj said that the secret, however, came out after six months. Swaraj further said that former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi allowed safe passage to Union Carbide chief Warren Anderson in a “quid pro quo” to secure the release of his childhood friend Adil Shahryar.

Netaji historian Anuj Dhar draws our attention as to why Gandhi allowed Anderson to go. He writes that Muhammad Yunus was a close confidant of Nehru and knew details about the Bose case. Read him here (takes you to an external site) about the issue:

Continue Reading


Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind Files Review Petition Against SC’s Ayodhya Verdict

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board is also expected to file one before December 9.



NEW DELHI: Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind on December 2 filed a review petition “on behalf of the entire Muslim community” against the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict, in which the court granted the disputed Ayodhya land to the Hindu parties and ordered allotment of 5 acres of alternate land to the Muslim parties.

Also Read: A 500-Year-Old Civilisational Wound Gets An Assured Healing

The review petition has been filed for certain parts of the court order. The Muslim body stated that none of the Muslim parties had wanted allotment of alternate land. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) is also expected to file a review petition before December 9. The Sunni Waqf Board, however, has decided not to review the judgement.

Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind observed in its petition that though the apex court had condemned the demolition of the Babri Masjid and its domes by the Hindu parties, it still awarded the disputed land to the very parties and thereby condoned the illegal acts.

Maulana Arshad Madani, chief of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, said earlier that a majority of Muslims want the review petition to be filed and the number of those in the community who are against it are very few.

“The court has given us this right and the review must be filed,” Madani told the Press Trust of India.

“The main contention in the case was that the mosque was built by destructing a temple. The court said that there was no evidence that the mosque was built after destructing a temple; the title of Muslims, therefore, was proven, but the final verdict was the opposite,” Madani said.

The Muslim body argued that the Hindu parties had based their claims on a series of illegal acts. Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, however, clarified that not all findings of the court are being challenged.

The Muslim body challenged that the main contention in the dispute case was that the Mosque was built after destroying a temple but there is no evidence that proves the same and even the court in its judgement agreed to that and hence, the title of Muslims was proven, yet, the final verdict was the opposite.

The review petition has sought a stay on the implementation of the Ayodhya verdict by highlighting the following aspects in the apex court’s judgement:

  1. The Supreme Court by giving the title to the Hindu parties rewarded the “crimes” committed in 1934, 1949, and 1992, when it had ruled that the acts of destruction of the mosque were illegal.
  2. The court disregarded the basic principle that no person should derive any sort of benefit from illegality by granting the disputed land wholly to the Hindu parties.
  3. The court wrongly applied Article 142 of the Constitution, as complete justice would have only prevailed if it had directed the reconstruction of the Babri Masjid.
  4. The court erred by not seeing that the structure in question was always a mosque and had been in possession of the Muslims.
  5. The court equated illegal acts of destruction and trespassing by Hindu parties to their assertion of claim over the disputed site.
  6. The court erred in not seeing that the Babri Masjid was the property of the Waqf board.
  7. The apex court erred did not fairly evaluate the evidence and gave precedence to the oral testimonies by the Hindu parties.

It may be noted that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind announced on November 17, 2019, that they would be filing a review petition against Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict.

The two Muslim bodies defended their decision by saying that the land on which mosque existed cannot be given up under the Sharia law. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board stated that building the same mosque at some other site is also not permissible as per Islamic law.

The Sunni Waqf board, however, clarified that they would not be filing a review petition. The Sunni Waqf Board as well as the main litigant, Iqbal Ansari, distanced themselves from the All India Muslim Personal Law Board’s decision of filing the review petition.

Besides the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) is also expected to file a review plea before December 9.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board stated after its Working Committee meeting in Lucknow that it was against accepting the allocation of 5 acres of alternate land for the mosque. The board said that allocating alternate land does to equate to repairing the damage caused and it will also not balance the situation. The board claimed that there were many contradictions in the verdict.

The Ayodhya Verdict:

The Supreme Court, in its historic verdict on November 9, 2019, had ordered the centre and the Uttar Pradesh state government to allocate 5 acres of alternate land to the Sunni Waqf board to build the mosque.

The Supreme Court had ruled that while the demolition of Babri Masjid was a violation of the law, it was undisputed that Ram was born in Ayodhya and that there was a structure underneath the mosque.

The court upheld the claim of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas that the disputed Ayodhya site was the birthplace of Ram and directed the centre to form a trust to oversee the construction of a Ram temple on the land.

According to the court’s order, the whole of the disputed land will be given to the Hindu parties to build the ram temple, while alternate 5 acres will be given to the Muslim parties for the construction of the mosque.

Before pronouncing the judgement, the Supreme Court had clarified that its judgement will not be based on faith but based on evidence.

Continue Reading

Most Read This Month

error: Content on this news portal is protected!