I HAVE MOVED: Please Visit New Blog

Dear Friends, Readers and Well Wishers:

Please note that I have moved my blog to a new address. Please visit http://onefinalblog.wordpress.com from now on. I hope you come back and read my new write-ups.

In fact, you'll be happy to know that in just over a month since floating the new blog, I got over 3,000 hits.

I promise to continue writing and expressing in a warm, friendly and positive way. It's just not my blog; it's yours too. I promise.

Thank you for your precious friendship and support.

Partha

Brooklyn, New York

India-Pakistan World Cup Cricket: Fixed?

India-Pakistan World Cup semifinal match: fixed?

FYI. (Please make a note that I'm not doing it because I'm anti-India, anti-Pakistan, or anti-anything. I'm only asking people to think calmly and objectively about the scandals and lies that cheat us and our children; there's NO difference when it comes to India, Pakistan or any other big power.)

It deeply troubles me, and keeps me awake. Here's my two cents on this. I hope you do something about it.

Were a billion-plus people (and especially children and youth) cheated by the people in power and their cronies on the field? Was there small or big-time fixing, group politics, gambling, spot-fixing, fancy-fixing, political pressure, personal rewards, threats or intimidation to sway the game and the overall outcome of 2011 World Cup Cricket?

Can we investigate, and prove or disprove the allegations?

I've played a lot of cricket in my years, and always kept in touch with it. Here's my "evidence" to bring a prima facie case with an allegation that the match could well have been fixed.

(1) Pakistan strike bowler Umar Gul's huge run giveaways in the first few overs; and yet, captain Shahid Afridi gave him the ball in the final overs when he gave away many more runs to give India a respectable total (completely unnecessary: Abdul Razzak who only bowled a couple of overs, was not given the ball, and he looked grim).

And was it true that Afridi refused the final bowling power play, making it even easier for India? (Personally, I'd want to believe that he was a helpless onlooker of group pressure and politics.)

(2) Pathetically slow batting by Pakistan batsmen: it was a pain sitting through watching it (especially by aggressive batsmen like Misbah and Younis), yielding an impossible asking run rate (it went up from 4 or 5 per over in the beginning of their innings to almost 9 in the middle of the innings; and India's bowling was truly below-average). The way some of the Pak batsmen threw their wickets away was horrible: couldn't possibly happen in a normal scenario.

(3) Pakistan players' body language was very suspicious: especially of Umar Gul, Kamran Akmal and Younis Khan; they looked face stiff even from the start of the game. Why?

(4) Pakistan constantly excluded star bowler Shoaib Akhtar even in the India match (who announced retirement after World Cup, expressing "disgust" the way he's been treated). Maybe, he knew something? Can we ask him?

(5) India played three ordinary pace bowlers especially Munaf and Nehra who bowled miserably; yet, star Pakistani batsmen would not make strokeplays against them.

(6) Pakistani wicketkeeper and other Pak players' gestures after dropping "Man of the Match" (?) Sachin four or five times were telling (and this wicket keeper is notoriously unscrupulous, many say). Come on, was it Sachin's Man-of-the-Match game? Why not young Riaz?

(7) Pakistan's recent political troubles are massive and it extremely needed to mend ties with India by any means; beating India in India would not go well with that fence-mending, and India would also perhaps be thrown in a Shiv Sena type turmoil (SS had already warned of dire consequences of a Pakistan win). ICC or BCCI would not want something that would cut into their profits and reputation (or whatever is left of the reputation). India govt., for that matter, needed something big for a diversion: India's economic situation is scary, and opposition is gaining ground.

The April 3 New York Times article said Sonia Gandhi got what she asked for: diversion from major IPL, Commonwealth and 2G scandals that rocked India.

(8) Pakistani minister's prior warning to players "not to fix" the India match was ominous. Maybe, it's time to have an interview with him?

(9) Pakistan's recent-past wicketkeeper Zulkarnain Haider's new allegations (and some other individuals' action including the Lahore court petition to investigate fixing) that the match was set up must be followed on.

All conjectures? Could be. But it's a question of thinking critically, and finding circumstantial evidence.

I have no doubt that you'd understand the gravity of the situation.

I'd be very happy if after investigation (a real one), it turns out to be all clean.

(Then we'll talk about the billion-dollar bookies in IPL and T-20, but we'll save it for now).

Thanks for listening.

Partha Banerjee

Brooklyn, New York

April 1, 2011

(Revised on April 4)

Sudan secession "inspiration to the world!" Whose inspiration?

Sudan secession "inspiration to the world!" Whose inspiration?

President Obama called the Sudan secession vote "an inspiration to the world." I am not so sure.

I had the privilege to have a Voice of America interview on the Sudan secession vote this morning. Gave them my two cents, without being an Africa expert. Mainly talked about the oil and human rights issues and the primary players. But I was surprised how the following article included a number of things I said (didn't get to read it before the interview: in a way, it was a good thing). Read article at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22736

I quote a few sections below.

Thanks for reading and reacting.

________

The Balkanization of Sudan: The Redrawing of the Middle East and North Africa

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, January 16, 2011

The limelight is on the January 2011 referendum in South Sudan. The Obama Administration has formally announced that it supports the separation of South Sudan from the rest of Sudan.

The balkanization of Sudan is what is really at stake. For years the leaders and officials of South Sudan have been supported by America and the European Union.

The Politically-Motivated Demonization of Sudan

A major demonization campaign has been underway against Sudan and its government. True, the Sudanese government in Khartoum has had a bad track record in regards to human rights and state corruption, and nothing could justify this.

In regards to Sudan, selective or targeted condemnation has been at work. One should, nonetheless, ask why the Sudanese leadership has been targeted by the U.S. and E.U., while the human rights records of several U.S. sponsored client states including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the U.A.E., and Ethiopia are casually ignored.

Khartoum has been vilified as a autocratic oligarchy guilty of targeted genocide in both Darfour and South Sudan. This deliberate focus on the bloodshed and instability in Darfour and South Sudan is political and motivated by Khartoum's ties to Chinese oil interests.

[...]

Distorting the Violence in Sudan

While there is a humanitarian crisis in Darfour and a surge in regional nationalism in South Sudan, the underlying causes of the conflict have been manipulated and distorted.

The underlying causes for the humanitarian crisis in Darfour and the regionalism in South Sudan are intimately related to economic and strategic interests. If anything, lawlessness and economic woes are the real issues, which have been fuelled by outside forces.

Either directly or through proxies in Africa, the U.S., the E.U., and Israel are the main architects behind the fighting and instability in both Darfour and South Sudan. These outside powers have assisted in the training, financing, and arming of the militias and forces opposed to the Sudanese government within Sudan. They lay the blame squarely on Khartoum's shoulders for any violence while they themselves fuel conflict in order to move in and control the energy resources of Sudan. The division of Sudan into several states is part of this objective. Support of the JEM, the South Sudan Liberation Army (SSLA), and other militias opposed to the Sudanese government by the U.S., the E.U., and Israel has been geared towards achieving the objective of dividing Sudan.

It is also no coincidence that for years the U.S., Britain, France, and the entire E.U. under the pretext of humanitarianism have been pushing for the deployment of foreign troops in Sudan. They have actively pushed for the deployment of NATO troops in Sudan under the cover of a U.N. peacekeeping mandate.

[...]

The Long-Standing Project to Balkanize Sudan and its links to the Arab World

In reality, the balkanization project in Sudan has been going on since the end of British colonial rule in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Sudan and Egypt were one country during many different periods. Both Egypt and Sudan were also one country in practice until 1956.

Up until the independence of Sudan, there was a strong movement to keep Egypt and Sudan united as a single Arab state, which was struggling against British interests. London, however, fuelled Sudanese regionalism against Egypt in the same manner that regionalism has been at work in South Sudan against the rest of Sudan. The Egyptian government was depicted in the same way as present-day Khartoum. Egyptians were portrayed as exploiting the Sudanese just as how the non-Southern Sudanese have been portrayed as exploiting the South Sudanese.

[...]

The Yinon Plan at work in Sudan and the Middle East

The balkanization of Sudan is also tied to the Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem. The strategic objective of the Yinon Plan is to ensure Israeli superority through the balkanization of the Middle Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states. It is in this context that Israel has been deeply involved in Sudan.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centre piece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. The Atlantic in this context published an article in 2008 by Jeffrey Goldberg called "After Iraq: What Will the Middle East Look Like?" [2] In the Goldberg article a map of the Middle East was presented that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan and the map of a future Middle East presented by Lieutentant-Colonel (retired) Ralph Peters in the U.S military's Armed Forces Journal in 2006.

It is also no coincidence that aside from a divided Iraq a divided Sudan was shown on the map. Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan were also presented as divided nations too. Of importance to East Africa in the map, illustrated by Holly Lindem for Goldberg's article, Eriteria is occupied by Ethiopia, which is a U.S. and Israeli ally, and Somalia is divided into Somaliland, Puntland, and a smaller Somalia.

[...]

The Hijacking of the 2011 Referendum in South Sudan

What happened to the dreams of a united Africa or a united Arab World? Pan-Arabism, a movement to unit all Arabic-speaking peoples, has taken heavy losses as has African unity. The Arab World and Africa have consistenly been balkanized.

Secession and balkanization in East Africa and the Arab World are on the U.S., Israeli, and NATO drawing board.

The SSLA insurgency has been covertly supported by the U.S., Britain, and Israel since the 1980s. The formation of a new state in the Sudan is not intended to serve the interests of the people of South Sudan. It has been part of a broader geo-strategic agenda aimed at controlling North Africa and the Middle East.

The resulting process of "democratization" leading up to the January 2011 referendum serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil companies and the rivalry against China. This comes at the cost of the detriment of true national sovereignty in South Sudan.
________

Full article at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22736

###