Local Implementation Plan Chapter 8. Local Implementation Plan Chapter 8: Fill & Download for Free

WARNING: LONG READ: In India, education is controlled both by Central and State Governments. I’ll talk about my experience i.e. learning about Pakistan from school textbooks designed by Central Government i.e. NCERT or National Council Of Educational Research And Training textbooks. In case anyone wants to read other books, the link provides all ebooks of NCERT for free.Summary: Pakistan is mentioned sparingly or is absent, except in Modern History (British Period) and Political Science books. In river systems portion of Geography, one does learn about the entire Indus Basin, including the portion in Pakistan. But that was about it. The history of the land that today constitutes Pakistan is a part of Indian History, as the brute majority of the Indian Subcontinent was called India before. Hence, Pakistan’s description is concerned only with the modern entity of Pakistan. Even in History books, the intricate details of Pakistan Movement, its genesis, leaders or demands are hardly mentioned. Mostly, Pakistan’s demand has been described as a result of both British Divide and Rule Policy and the communal politics of Muslim League. Partition of India is described with a sense of sorrow, reluctantly agreed upon at the very end by Indian leaders, who never accepted the Two Nation Theory. The great suffering, mass killings, rape and displacement induced by Partition, with both sides bearing equal blame is emphasized. Present history of Pakistan is absent, except in context of India-Pakistan wars, relations and problems in J&KTL;DR version: I read the Class XII Political Science Textbook (Re: Politics in India since Independence) and have divided the quotations from the book into three sections. First describes Partition of India and briefly, the Two Nation Theory. Second describes the Indo-Pak wars and relations. Third describes the Kashmir Issue.DEPICTION OF PARTITION AND BRIEF EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME [Re: Chapter 1]: Sorrowful, with both sides blamed for the violence. Two Nation theory of the Muslim League finds a mention.Page 2:Freedom came with Partition, which resulted in large scale violence and displacement and challenged the very idea of a secular India.Page 4:Tomorrow we shall be free from the slavery of the British domination. But at midnight India will be partitioned. Tomorrow will thus be a day of rejoicing as well as mourning - Mahatma Gandhi, 14 August 1947Page 6:This scarred, marred brightness, this bitten-by-night dawn -The one that was awaited, surely, this is not that dawn. - Faiz Ahmed FaizPage 7:Whatever the provocation from Pakistan and whatever the indignities and horrors inflicted on non-Muslims there, we have got to deal with this minority in a civilised manner. We must give them security and the rights of citizens in a democratic State. - Jawaharlal Nehru, Letter to Chief Ministers, 15 October 1947Page 8 (Two Nation Theory comes into picture):According to the ‘two-nation theory’ advanced by the Muslim League, India consisted of not one but two ‘people’, Hindus and Muslims. That is why it demanded Pakistan, a separate country for the Muslims. The Congress opposed this theory and the demand for Pakistan. But several political developments in 1940s, the political competition between the Congress and the Muslim League and the British role led to the decision for the creation of Pakistan.Process of PartitionThus it was decided that what was till then known as ‘India’ would be divided into two countries, ‘India’ and ‘Pakistan’. Such a division was not only very painful, but also very difficult to decide and to implement. It was decided to follow the principle of religious majorities. This basically means that areas where the Muslims were in majority would make up the territory of Pakistan. The rest was to stay with India.Page 8 (Apparently a critique of Two Nation Theory):Secondly, not all Muslim majority areas wanted to be in Pakistan. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the undisputed leader of the North Western Frontier Province and known as ‘Frontier Gandhi’, was staunchly opposed to the two-nation theory. Eventually, his voice was simply ignored and the NWFP was made to merge with Pakistan.Page 8 continued:..a large number of people did not know on the day of Independence whether they were in India or in Pakistan. The Partition of these two provinces caused the deepest trauma of Partition.This was related to the fourth and the most intractable of all the problems of partition. This was the problem of ‘minorities’ on both sides of the border. Lakhs of Hindus and Sikhs in the areas that were now in Pakistan and an equally large number of Muslims on the Indian side of Punjab and Bengal (and to some extent Delhi and surrounding areas) found themselves trapped. They were to discover that they were undesirable aliens in their own home, in the land where they and their ancestors had lived for centuries. As soon as it became clear that the country was going to be partitioned, the minorities on both sides became easy targets of attack. No one had quite anticipated the scale of this problem. No one had any plans for handling this. Initially, the people and political leaders kept hoping that this violence was temporary and would be controlled soon. But very soon the violence went out of control. The minorities on both sides of the border were left with no option except to leave their homes, often at a few hours’ notice.Page 10:Thousands of women were abducted on both sides of the border. They were made to convert to the religion of the abductor and were forced into marriage. In many cases women were killed by their own family members to preserve the ‘family honour’. Many children were separated from their parents. Those who did manage to cross the border found that they had no home. For lakhs of these ‘refugees’ the country’s freedom meant life in ‘refugee camps’, for months and sometimes for years.Page 11 (human cost of Partition + pits communal ideas of Muslim League against secular ideals of Indian leaders):What also got divided were the financial assets, and things like tables, chairs, typewriters, paper-clips, books and also musical instruments of the police band! The employees of the government and the railways were also ‘divided’. Above all, it was a violent separation of communities who had hitherto lived together as neighbours. It is estimated that the Partition forced about 80 lakh people to migrate across the new border. Between five to ten lakh people were killed in Partition related violence.…The Muslim League was formed to protect the interests of the Muslims in colonial India. It was in the forefront of the demand for a separate Muslim nation. Similarly, there were organisations, which were trying to organise the Hindus in order to turn India into a Hindu nation. But most leaders of the national movement believed that India must treat persons of all religions equally and that India should not be a country that gave superior status to adherents of one faith and inferior to those who practiced another religion. All citizens would be equal irrespective of their religious affiliation. Being religious or a believer would not be a test of citizenship. They cherished therefore the ideal of a secular nation. This ideal was enshrined in the Indian Constitution.DEPICTION OF WARS AND RELATIONS WITH PAKISTAN (Re: Chapter 4): The only other substantial mention of Pakistan I found in this book. For 1965, 1971 and 1999 wars, Pakistan is depicted as the aggressor i.e. initiator of hostilities. 1965 war is painted as inconclusive with India inflicting more losses on Pakistan. 1971 is depicted as clear victory. While Kargil war of 1999 is depicted as return of status quo for India through both military and diplomacy, for Pakistan, Musharraf is shown the winner and Nawaz Sharif the loser. Historically, this ain’t far from truth as well.Page 74 (1965 war):In April 1965 Pakistan launched armed attacks in the Rann of Kutch area of Gujarat. This was followed by a bigger Offensive in Jammu and Kashmir in August-September. Pakistani rulers were hoping to get support from the local population there, but it did not happen. In order to ease the pressure on the Kashmir front, Shastri ordered Indian troops to launch a counter-offensive on the Punjab border. In a fierce battle, the Indian army reached close to Lahore.The hostilities came to an end with the UN intervention. Later, Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistan’s General Ayub Khan signed the Tashkent Agreement, brokered by the Soviet Union, in January 1966. Though India could inflict considerable military loss on Pakistan, the 1965 war added to India’s already difficult economic situation.Page 74 (1971 war):..The Bengali population of East Pakistan had voted to protest against years of being treated as second class citizens by the rulers based in West Pakistan. The Pakistani rulers were not willing to accept the democratic verdict. Nor were they ready to accept the Awami League’s demand for a federation.Instead, in early 1971, the Pakistani army arrested Sheikh Mujib and unleashed a reign of terror on the people of East Pakistan. In response to this, the people started a struggle to liberate ‘Bangladesh’ from Pakistan. Throughout 1971, India had to bear the burden of about 80 lakh refugees who fled East Pakistan and took shelter in the neighbouring areas in India. India extended moral and material support to the freedom struggle in Bangladesh. Pakistan accused India of a conspiracy to break it up.A small side cartoon with the following quote:Why do we say India and Pakistan had a war? Leaders quarrel and armies fight wars. Most ordinary citizens have nothing to do with these.Page 75 (1971 war contd.):After months of diplomatic tension and military build-up, a full-scale war between India and Pakistan broke out in December 1971. Pakistani aircrafts attacked Punjab and Rajasthan, while the army moved on the Jammu and Kashmir front. India retaliated with an attack involving the air force, navy and the army on both the Western and the Eastern front. Welcomed and supported by the local population, the Indian army made rapid progress in East Pakistan. Within ten days the Indian army had surrounded Dhaka from three sides and the Pakistani army of about 90,000 had to surrender. With Bangladesh as a free country, India declared a unilateral ceasefire. Later, the signing of the Shimla Agreement between Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on 3 July 1972 formalised the return of peace.A decisive victory in the war led to national jubiliation. Most people in India saw this as a moment of glory and a clear sign of India’s growing military prowess.Page 75 (Kargil War of 1999):In the early part of 1999 several points on the Indian side of the LoC in the Mashkoh, Dras, Kaksar and Batalik areas were occupied by forces claiming to be Mujahideens. Suspecting involvement of the Pakistan Army, Indian forces started reacting to this occupation. This led to a confrontation between the two countries. This is known as the Kargil conflict. This conflict went on during May and June 1999. By 26 July 1999, India had recovered control of many of the lost points. The Kargil conflict drew attention worldwide for the reason that only one year prior to that, both India and Pakistan had attained nuclear capability. However, this conflict remained confined only to the Kargil region. In Pakistan, this conflict has been the source of a major controversy as it was alleged later that the Prime Minister of Pakistan was kept in the dark by the Army Chief. Soon after the conflict, the government of Pakistan was taken over by the Pakistan Army led by the Army Chief, General Parvez Musharraf.DEPICTION OF PRESENT DAY INDO-PAK RELATIONS: Seems too neutralPage 79:Indo-Pakistan relations have witnessed many new developments during this period. While Kashmir continues to be the main issue between the two countries, there have been many efforts to restore normal relations. This means that cultural exchanges, movement of citizens and economic cooperation would be encouraged by both countries. Do you know that a train and a bus service operate between these two countries? This has been a major achievement of the recent times. But that could not avoid the near-war situation from emerging in 1999. Even after this setback to the peace process, efforts at negotiating durable peace have been going on.DEPICTION OF KASHMIR ISSUE (Re: Chapter 8) :Page 151:Roots of the problemBefore 1947, Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) was a Princely State. Its Hindu ruler, Hari Singh, did not want to merge with India and tried to negotiate with India and Pakistan to have an independent status for his state. The Pakistani leaders thought the Kashmir region ‘belonged’ to Pakistan, since majority population of the State was Muslim. But this is not how the people themselves saw it – they thought of themselves as Kashmiris above all. The popular movement in the State, led by Sheikh Abdullah of the National Conference, wanted to get rid of the Maharaja, but was against joining Pakistan. The National Conference was a secular organisation and had a long association with the Congress. Sheikh Abdullah was a personal friend of some of the leading nationalist leaders including Nehru.In October 1947, Pakistan sent tribal infiltrators from its side to capture Kashmir. This forced the Maharaja to ask for Indian military help. India extended the military support and drove back the infiltrators from Kashmir valley, but only after the Maharaja had signed an ‘Instrument of Accession’ with the Government of India. It was also agreed that once the situation normalised, the views of the people of J&K will be ascertained about their future. Sheikh Abdullah took over as the Prime Minister of the State of J&K (the head of the government in the State was then called Prime Minister) in March 1948. India agreed to maintain the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir.Page 154Externally, Pakistan has always claimed that Kashmir valley should be part of Pakistan. As we noted above, Pakistan sponsored a tribal invasion of the State in 1947, as a consequence of which one part of the State came under Pakistani control. India claims that this area is under illegal occupation. Pakistan describes this area as ‘Azad Kashmir’. Ever since 1947, Kashmir has remained a major issue of conflict between India and Pakistan.Page 157..it was widely believed that the results did not reflect popular choice, and that the entire election (1987) process was rigged. A popular resentment had already been brewing in the State against the inefficient administration since early 1980s. This was now augmented by the commonly prevailing feeling that democratic processes were being undermined at the behest of the Centre. This generated a political crisis in Kashmir which became severe with the rise of insurgency.By 1989, the State had come in the grip of a militant movement mobilised around the cause of a separate Kashmiri nation. The insurgents got moral, material and military support from Pakistan. For a number of years the State was under President’s rule and effectively under the control of the armed forces. Throughout the period from 1990, Jammu and Kashmir experienced violence at the hands of the insurgents and through army action. Assembly elections in the State were held only in 1996 in which the National Conference led by Farooq Abdullah came to power with a demand for regional autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir.Overall, when compared with Pakistani textbooks (check the link to compare with Pakistani Textbooks), I found this particular book and other Indian NCERT textbooks to be:Less hyperbolic, less emotional and more factualEspousing secularism over communalism. Hardly anything is painted with a religious colour.Better at depicting the human aspects of politics and war (shown in the harrowing description of Partition of India)More scholarly, neutral and professionally written.

(STILL WORKING ON THIS)Instead of focusing on whether we can trust Iran's leaders, we might ask why they would trust our leaders. Ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, atomic weapons have been entirely defensive. History shows that countries pursue nuclear capability primarily in response to an adversary having one. Iran has good reason to doubt American intentions.(Friends, help view and vote if you like the answer, let's see if I can beat the prez.)Americans would do well to speed-read some Iranian history, as well as some history around nuclear weaponry in general. So, let's do that. Apologies if this gets into the weeds:Oil being discovered in Persia (Iran) in 1908 was a decidedly mixed blessing for the locals. The British and Russian Empires had been locked into a battle for their "spheres of influence" for a century. If you're interested in this period of history, you should find some books on "The Great Game", Russians refer to the period "The Tournament of Shadows" so you would search for Турниры теней instead.The Russians, of course, had been on a steady diet of imperial expansion for centuries, so this collision was to be expected:[map is from Chapter 8 in History of the Modern World, 10th Edition (Palmer)]Once the Grand Duchy of Moscow (often called Muscovy in english) was founded in the year 1283, the base (Moscow) was in place for what would grow to become the Tsarist Russia. The founding regent, Daniel I (or Daniel of Moscow) was a young prince in the Rurik dynasty, and was directly descended from the legendary founder, the prince Rurik. Descendants of Rurik ruled the Russian kingdoms for the next 700 years, until the rise of the Romanovs.(By the way, Rurik's Y-DNA has been fairly convincingly reconstructed by the Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project. Personally, I'm not directly descended, by my Y-DNA math we have a common male ancestor somewhere around 3000-4000BC.)As the map shows, Muscovy and it's political descendants (e.g. Russia) proceeded with imperial expansion for the next six hundred years, arguably continuing up to this day. It would inevitably start fighting over the same spoils as that pursued by the British empire. The English had begun expanding beyond their shores in the late 16th century. Amongst the very first efforts, in 1576 Martin Frobisher set sail with an expedition to find the North West Passage. I mention this in particular because, in a delicious bit of historical irony, these very early steps towards a colonial empire was funded by the Muscovy Company - so named because it had a monopoly on trade with Muscovy.So, it was indeed only a matter of time before the British and Russians would butt heads in Central Asia. The Russians lost: the Anglo-Russian Entente in 1907 set out the agreement between Britain and Russia, stopping short further Russian expansion southwards. The map below, dating from the immediate years after the entente, clearly shows the dotted line of the "Southern Limit of Russian Sphere".Notice how the line cuts straight through Persia (Iran). You probably never knew that Britain and Russia were carving up Persia in the early 1900s.The First World War in 1914, and the Russian Revolution in 1917, tabled the issue of how stable that dotted line would remain. In the face of a remilitarized Germany in the 1930s, Stalin could hardly afford military confrontation with England.But don't think Russia had given up on further expansion southwards. (Indeed, as you might have noticed in the news recently.)In our story, we next go to 1941, when British and Russian troops invade and occupy Persia to make sure the oil fields don't fall into German hands, and to secure supply lines eastward. After that war, despite the rhetoric, the Allies were somehow slow to leave. Soviet troops stayed in the north, and only withdrew in 1947 after intense American pressure. The context for that pressure, in turn, was the beginning of the Cold War, and the regions of Greece, Turkey, and Iran became vital buffer zones for American global strategy against Stalin.Russia had thus gone from being blocked in the region by the British Empire, only to have the collapse of that same empire quickly replaced by the new American one. Must have been frustrating.Why Stalin would back down at all needs to be viewed in the context of the budding nuclear arms race in 1946, but more on that later.The British influence remained well past the war through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (the predecessor of BP). When political (democratic) pressure in Iran was growing on the issue of nationalizing the country's (own) oil reserves, the US helped organize the 1953 coup, ousting Prime Minister Mosaddeq and putting Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in power. With extensive US military and economic support, the Shah ruled as an autocrat until the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Iran was a pillar in US Middle Eastern strategy to contain the Soviet Union. A non-autocratic, democratic, Iran would not very likely have been a friend of Russia, given their histories, but why take the risk?Quick back-track: following on the heels of the formation of Israel came the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. A devastating, and shocking, defeat for the invading armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. This loss in turn destabilized the domestic politics of the region - leading to a military coup in Syria in 1949, in Egypt in 1952, and in Iraq in 1958. The one monarchy in the area that endured was that of Jordan, where the Hashemite family of the current King Abdullah have ruled since 1946 (and still do).How the Hashemites managed to pull that off is a fascinating story in and of itself. Abdullah I of Jordan was born in Mecca in 1882, convinced his father in 1910 to stand for Grand Sharif of Mecca, sat in the Ottoman parliament (the one created by the original Young Turks) as representative of Mecca before World War I, during that war worked with T. E. Lawrence to organize the Great Arab Revolt against Ottoman rule, became an Emir of Transjordan in 1921 under British Mandate, and with British support became King of the newly formed Jordan in 1946.His relationship with Winston Churchill didn't hurt: he had acquiesced in 1918 to Churchill's request to not attack the French in Damascus, from where they had ousted his brother. Instead, his brother became King of Iraq in 1921. It was his brother's grandson, Faisal II of Iraq, who was deposed in the 1958 coup.Have I lost you in the weeds yet, dear reader? Sorry, this is fun stuff, and a good excuse to revisit some of the details.In parallel, a different course had developed in neighboring Iraq. The British and then the Americans had succeeded in establishing a pro-western monarchy after the war, even linking Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey in an anti-Soviet defense partnership, the Baghdad Pact.That air of stability was brief. Whereas Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey were solidly aligned, the 1958 coup in Iraq upset the apple cart. It began the sequence of (quite convoluted) events that led to Saddam Hussein rising to de facto leader in the late 1970s, and formally assume presidency in July 1979. And it put Iraq quickly on the path to, alongside with Egypt, ally with the USSR.Briefly, back to Iran. What was Iran's reaction to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war? Iran was in fact an ally of Israel, the second muslim country in the world (after Turkey) to formally recognize the newly formed Jewish Homeland. Support between 1948 and 1979 was overt - for example providing oil through European markets after the Arab Oil Embargo following the 1973 war. Iran was the only major oil producer in the area alongside Saudi Arabia to side with the US in that economic conflict, and together they greatly diminished the impact of the embargo. Nota bene that the 1948 war was the Arab-Israeli war. Iran isn't Arab (an ethnic group), it's Persian, though it is also Muslim (a religion). Don't ask an Arab if he's Persian, and definitely do not ask a Persian if he's Arab. It's almost as bad as asking a Canadian what state he's from.In fact, even after the Ayatollah came to power in Iran, and labeled Israel the "Little Satan" (America got the honor of "Great Satan"), collaboration continued. Under the Reagan administration, the US shipped weaponry to Iran through Israel, in addition to Israeli sales, to stem the collapse of the Iranian forces in the face of the Iraqi invasion.Because with the fall of the Shah and the political confusion of the revolution, Saddam leveraged the situation both to cement his power in Iraq, and to pursue some long-standing territorial grievances, and invaded in September, 1980. At that time,And, yes, we also supplied weaponry and other support to Iraq. We didn't want either side to win, so, being the gentlemen we are we would primarily support whomever was losing at any particular time.And the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world is more or less entirely our doing. After WW2, there was no need for an offensive strike capability of this nature, yet we continued to develop, test, and improve a quickly-expanding nuclear bomb program. In fact, it was hotly debated in the Truman administration what path to take - surrender nuclear monopoly in exchange for an international control regime, or to take a hard stance versus the Soviet Union. The Acheson–Lilienthal Report (March 1946) suggested the creation of an international agency that would control all fissile material, on the theory that its production was the hardest part to accomplish. Though Truman nominally supported the plan, the political implementation of it at the UN included two items that the Soviets were not likely to accept: that the USSR would immediately stop developing a bomb and not wait for the US to dismantle it's nuclear capability, and for the agency to have the right to unrestricted inspections within the USSR.Two things are curious here: first, neither Acheson nor Lilienthal supported those demands, second, it sounds very familiar to our rhetoric with Iran today.Our approach to international control of nuclear weapons was obviously not acceptable to the USSR, and with that decision we created the nuclear arms race. To really hammer it home, in July of 1946 we commenced Operation Crossroads, which were the atomic tests at the Bikini Atoll, while literally in the midst of initiating these diplomatic efforts. If you read some of the contemporary news coverage, it is striking to see this page from the New York Times (https://flic.kr/p/yDkYvV), where we're blithely talking about setting up a global international control system for nuclear weapons, and simultaneously getting all excited about the "science" resulting from "Able" and "Baker", the two 23 kiloton bombs. As if that isn't clear enough, consider this picture published in the Washington Post in November:To be fair, it did provoke a bit of an outrage. A local Unitarian minister delivered a blistering sermon a few days later, which became known as The Atomic Cake Sermon (1946). With prescience he noted: "I only hope to God it is not printed in Russia—to confirm everything the Soviet government is telling the Russian people about how ‘American degenerates’ are able to treat with levity the most cruel, pitiless, revolting instrument of death ever invented by man."But the damage was done. As the Associated Press reported several days later, both Izvestia and Trud covered the story (story: https://flic.kr/p/yn2ApX). For the record, Admiral Blandy and his wife are unfairly hung out to dry with the picture, even though in fact the Admiral had nothing to do with the reception or the cake, and if anything was an active advocate of international control of atomic weapons. Though it's not likely the Russian's viewed his participation in a celebration as a good sign.And the British followed in kind. Congress passed the McMahon Act in July, which forbade any continued sharing of nuclear weaponry information with any foreign power, included close allies. The Atlee government of Britain, instead of seeing the wisdom of America's first step in shutting down dissemination of the technology, reacted quite differently. Participants of a cabinet meeting in October later quoted Atlee as saying "We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs ... We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."Combined with the Truman doctrine of moving against the Soviet Union across the global landscape, the Soviet Union rushed to develop a nuclear strike capability that would neutralize America's "ace". The Soviet succeeded with their first nuclear bomb test in 1949.The domino effect continued. The prospect of Soviet nukes in Europe then led Britain (1952) and France (1960) to the same. In the early 1960s, the ideological political divisions between the Soviet Union under Khrushchev and China under Mao grew, until an eventual split in 1963-1964.Khrushchev's refusal to help China with their nuclear program, and his refusal to side with China against India in the 1962 Sino-Indian war, might have been the tipping point for Mao. Or perhaps he was just waiting for the Great Leap Forward to deliver him his own bomb, which it did in 1964.In 1965, China then proceeded to support Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani war. Part of the alignment between Pakistan and China was due to the US surprising their allies by declaring themselves neutral, and cutting off arms supplies to both sides. Not surprisingly, next in line with a nuclear capability was India in 1974, and then, of course, Pakistan in 1998.And since we're talking about Iran, we need to quickly cover the Israeli dimension. The Israelis might have had operational nuclear devices as early as the 1967 war (the Six Day War), and in fact it's even possible that the war itself was triggered by (as it happens, correct) neighboring Arab assessment that the Israelis were on the brink of a nuclear capability. The intentional ambiguity of the program remained after the war, and neither the 1967 conflict nor the subsequent 1973 Arab-Israeli war ever came close to actually defeating Israel, so the need to use a weapon did not arise. After 1973 it was fairly evident that Israel had a defensive nuclear capability, and no large-scale war has occurred since. The 1981 Israeli strike against the Iraqi nuclear program defended the Israelis monopoly of a nuclear capability in the region.Israel is the rare exception to a country pursuing a nuclear weapon primarily in response to another country having a nuclear weapon (the other being North Korea). Ironically, the only prior example was Nazi Germany: America's intent on constructing a nuclear bomb was largely predicated on fear that the Germans would do it first. But considering the intent of it's neighbors in 1948, and of course taking note of how many in the Israeli political elite in the 1950s were actually Holocaust survivors, it's understandable.How Israel got it's head start in nuclear weapons is worthy of yet another segue. The rise of Nasser and Arab nationalism in the 1950s threatened the core of the British and French colonial empires. Neither London nor Paris had quite gotten the memo yet, that they were no longer in charge. Hitlers belief that Britain would not help Stalin had a fatal flaw: Adolf understood global politics and economics better than Churchill did, but what he did not understand was that Churchill would simply refuse to accept that he faced such a choice. He did not have the imagination to see the end of empire. But lest we be too hasty in judging him, his successors didn't either.So when Nasser closed the Suez CanalIt's preposterous to think that the Israelis would use a nuclear device as an offensive weapon. However, should a neighboring Arab state, such as Iran, develop such a capability, it would upset the apple cart. Israel being alone in the region with the ability for over 40 years has worked "just fine". Should a nearby nation that Israel considers hostile develop a counter-strike capability, then the existential defensive insurance is potentially threatened. Change is bad in these matters. This is probably the single major reason to take an Iranian nuclear capability seriously. After all, the conflicts between the various combinations of Russians, Americans, British, French, Chinese, Indians, and Pakistanis, have largely been ideological/nationalistic. But the Israeli-Arab conflict has a significant religious element. If both sides had nukes, it would be the first time two opposing parties with strong religious motivations would be squared off in such manner. Let's not try that experiment.Note that this "trust" aspect has nothing to do with what you may or may not think about the Iranian regime. Nor does it have much to do with whether or not you believe Iran is actually pursuing a nuclear device.

Important:COVID 19 CERTIFICATE FORMATTES - 43 SSBBOARD: 18 SSB ALLAHABADDATE:- 18 JULY 2020CALLED:- 460Reporting Stage-1: 110SEND BACK DUE TO NO COVID-19 TEST:- 59PPDT APPEAR: 51SCREENED IN: 12RECOMMENDED: 0 :( Washed OutLECTURATE :- AI, social media , terrorism j&k , 370, Single party vs coalition gov. , Indian defence forces .GD : What' the intention behind China's OBOR plan1. Economic development2. Need/urge of Expansion of its territory3. China want to build friendship & influence it's neighbours:- What's the cause/reasons behind ever increasing cheating problem being shown in youth nowadays by doing unwanted practices..1.Lack of moral values2, Cut through competition in exam3.Education priorityPPDT PICTURE: A girl playing piano or using computer had big screen in front of her , hight was very small as per chair( Made story about app development research for startup )NEW RULES & REGULATIONS• phones are taken in all SSB boards like previously except Allahabad• Each SSB centre using there own jugad to prevent corona, for eg. : In ppdt they may give only packet food, while for screened candidates somewhere there is packed food only while other boards are working normally with strict social distancing as they allow 10–15 candidates at a time on mess together with all having mask & distancing.• Selection Centre Bhopal is allowing candidates with not so proper covid certificate also whereas Allahabad was very strict in it, in Bhopal all the SCREENED candidate were tested for corona once all found negative they treated us like in case any normal SSB• Temperature & blood oxygen levels are checked every day this is very good• Screening no. has reduced in general, so GTO group of 6–6 generally are made• In Bhopal rather than 2 days GTO task got finished in single day only• Having finished all task like Interview, Psych,GTO just in 2 days & suppose conference being conducted in evening of first day it's very much feasible to shorten SSB from 5 to 3 days only.Infact during SSB at lockdown all task will be conducted hastily.• One has to stay in their room only, expected not to interact with other without important purpose• SSB are doing their best to make sure all candidates remain happy & safe during their stay with them, I'm proud to see jugaad done by officers could relate how Effective Intelligence what they seek in SSB is actually implement by them.TAT STORY SEEN BY MEA person following another in isolated market place , person who has been followed is appearing to be under confidant, walking slouching==> I wrote X when went to visit his frnd Y due to his absence from online classl went to check him out at his home when he found his frnds mother is ill & has gone to buy medicine, he catched him up in in way, learnt details about her mother conditions , helped him in buying medicine from certified chemist & got him discount over purchase, bought seasonal fruits to their way to his home, he made diet plan for unty , pursued him not to take care of academic & give full attention to her & make her feel comfortable through her recovery, taught him briefly about chapters covered & provided him his enotes& get back to home.Similarly action oriented stories were writened.2. 1 man (17~28) in military type uniform shaking hand wi XCth someone senior to him in similar demeanour(NCC guy got appourtunity to lead RDC contingent parade trail at division level, made all nessesary steps for being good commander & trainer towards his team.)3. A boy is drowning in middle of lake 3 people on normal boat rowing towards him to save him(Typically saving life of drowning person story with requisite action like CPR, calm , ambulance,caught4 hair, a pursuaded him to swim safety , taught him way improve his bad technique due to which got cram in middle of lake.)4. A kid being locked inside room from outside, someone (16~25) moving towards him to tackle situation==> (Observed suspicious behaviour from tenants near locality ,investigated , sign language confirmed situation , took him out from their , fought with miscreants & made them caught by police)5. A person struggling to row in ocean amidst high rapids covering him all, appears he has some important thing to do that's why he is going into such situation6.10 person struggling to analyse hurriedly over multiple papers on the desk like a conference table, half half people on each side doing something together(MADE story when hero prepared for newspaper making competiton)7: 2 children sitting over tree branch looking something at ground , country side background8. A single man trekking in mountain type terrain with bagpack9. Accident photoINTERVIEW QUESTIONSTell me about education, participation in ECA activities, sportsFamily background , education qualification parents, profession, how time spentGreatest strength & weaknessCompare with frnd (4) , what best friend tell about me to himGK, defence forces, Hobbies, counter questions==> Basically what I found that 18 SSB Allahabad has carefully conducted SSB but there all process were very fast like SSB in lockdown we are being given less time in ppdt discussion , Personal Interview, GD, PGT, CTThey were planning to conduct conference on GTO day 2 only, as due to less batch size & their own new style SSB day 1 -pschology + all candidates interview finishedDay 2:- All GTO task except CT, FGTThey could have shortned Interview in 4 days only,Selection rate is practically low in post lockdown batches may be I'm not correct about thisKeep on trying hard & Yes U have it in you🇮🇳 Jai Hind 🇮🇳 🇮🇳PLEASE UPVOTES & SHARE