US & Russia should cooperate to check Islamic Terrorism

The new president is discovering that America's road to Kabul goes through Moscow, says Eric Walberg

---

As United States President Barack Obama prepares to transfer troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda and other jihadists are also "transferring" there, according to Afghan Defence Minister General Abdel-Rahim Wardak, giving the country the dubious distinction of remaining the centre of the "war on terror". Throwing down the gauntlet to Obama, the Taliban successfully closed the Khyber Pass yet again last week by blowing up a bridge, torching 10 supply trucks for good measure. The Pakistan army responded by bombing an insurgent base, killing 52 suspected militants. The Taliban have killed nearly two dozen suspected US spies in recent months, all of them in the border region where American drone aircraft have carried out a series of missile strikes.

Newly installed officials describe the situation on the ground in Afghanistan as far more precarious than they had anticipated, with US government departments poorly organised to implement the plan he presented last week to his National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Special envoy to Afghanistan-Pakistan Richard Holbrooke said it is "an extraordinarily dysfunctional situation in which the very objectives have to be reviewed." Obama reacted by delaying the deployment of any further troops until defence chiefs presented a coherent "endgame", though he can hardly afford to wait 60 days for the results of his "Afpak" policy review. After only a few weeks in office, Obama has painted himself into a corner on this, the stoney cornerstone of his foreign policy.

Despite talk of change and both his and Vice-President Joe Biden's professed distaste and distrust for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, it appears that Obama is committed to continuing Bush's ill-conceived policy of bombing both Afghanistan and Pakistan, supporting a puppet regime and expecting the starving shell-shocked natives to be thankful. One innovation from the "dying" days of the Bush regime that thankfully looks like it was still-born was proposed by General Bantz John Craddock, the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, Commander of the US European Command and head of the International Security Assistance Force, the "peace- keeping force" operating in Afghanistan. He advocated giving troops a licence to kill all suspected poppy farmers, in effect ordering the mass execution of tens of thousands of civilians.

This Pol Pot strategy of genocide led to a mutiny by NATO officers and it looks like Craddock will be forced to resign, but it is surely a sign of the times. In December 2008 US military doctrine was modified to permit the bombing of drug labs if intelligence suggested that no more than 10 civilians would be killed. Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated, "If we have evidence that the drug labs and drug lords are supporting the Taliban, then they're fair game." Will he also be forced to resign? Or will genocide become the official US policy in Afghanistan?

The latest problem for Obama is the loss of the US airbase in Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyz President Kumanbek Bakiyev announced the decision in a Moscow press conference after talks with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. He was attending the Collective Security Treaty Organisation meeting which set up a regional rapid reaction force to include Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. He explained the cancellation as due to the US mission in the "war on terror" being over, and besides, the US wasn't paying enough and had whisked a US soldier accused of murder out of the country without so much as a howdy-do. On the closure of the precious US base, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said this was a sovereign decision of Kyrgyz authorities, albeit sweetened by Russia's $2 billion loan and $150 million gift to Kyrgyzstan, once the darling of the US neoliberals and scene of the US-sponsored "tulip" revolution, but now another bankrupt failed state.

Ending the US military presence in Kyrgyzstan puts the last piece into place in the Russian control of supply routes to Afghanistan through its "near abroad". This is a serious blow to Obama's plan to up the ante in Afghanistan. The Khyber Pass is no longer reliable and the only other access for supplies -- apart from Iran -- is now through Russia. Not unaware of this dilemma, the Kremlin has bent over backwards to show Washington it is ready to accommodate US transport needs. Lavrov said: "We expect the US side to send a request on the quantity and the nature of the supplies. We will give a relevant permission as soon as this happens."

But for the US to benefit from Russian goodwill, it will have to abandon its missile plans for Eastern Europe and tear up its invitations to Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. Will the US risk abandoning its vital supply links to 60,000 troops in Afghanistan just to put its toys in eastern Europe and invite its "friends" Ukraine and Georgia into its private club? After the gay 90s, when Russian policy was made in Washington, is US policy now being made in Moscow? A delicious irony.

As a sign of which way the wind is blowing, Harvard professor Karl Kaiser confidently dismisses any further plans to expand NATO to include Georgia and Ukraine in a recent New York Times editorial, arguing that the former's reckless war against Russia shows how easily NATO could be dragged into a senseless war, and that the latter is too divided a nation on the issue. If NATO were forced to undertake a conventional war in Europe which existing members don't want, it would be shown up as a paper tiger, leading to its own collapse. Hmmm. Perhaps letting the Georgian joker into this exclusive club is not such a bad idea after all.

As an afterthought, Kaiser adds that it would further harm already bad relations with Russia and suggests the Obama administration push for a new understanding with Russia, including strategic arms control, a nonproliferation policy, a new "security architecture", and reviving the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. All of these issues will require serious compromise by the US, which would be wonderful, but how far and how fast can Obama go without raising the ire of US hawks? The answer depends very much on how successful Obama is in faraway Afghanistan in the next 12 months. Which depends on the Russians. Obama is painted into yet another corner, this time a Russian-Afghan one.

The standard line in Western media is to warn against "Russian expansionism", as if it has no right to demand that its borders are safe and nearby countries don't aim nuclear missiles at it. At last week's Munich Security Conference (MSC), US Vice-President Joe Biden vowed to resist the notion of a Russian sphere of influence (read: he accepts it grudgingly, and don't tell anyone), promising that the new government under President Barack Obama would continue to press NATO to seek "deeper cooperation" with like-minded countries (read: Ukraine and Georgia will not get invitations to join NATO). He also said the Obama administration would continue to pursue the missile defense system, "in consultation with our NATO allies and Russia," provided the technology works and is not too expensive (read: "Maybe we will, maybe we won't. I dare you to put your missiles in Kaliningrad").

"So how can Obama reconcile the two goals of strengthening the American presence in Afghanistan while curbing Russian expansionism?" asks Stratfor chief George Friedman in another NYT op-ed. His answer (I'm not making this up) is to "rely less on troops, and more on covert operations like the CIA." Covert operators travel lightly, as we know from James Bond movies, and can spot Bin Laden terrorist training camps, beam the coordinates to Scotty and -- wham! Mission accomplished. Friedman, taking a leaf from Rumsfeld's scribblings, argues this would require far fewer forces and remove the irksome supply-routes problem. He does make the valid point that Obama's conventional route of putting more troops on the ground is doomed, but more bombing, spying and other covert activities is hardly a credible option.

The only real alternative to the present military quagmire is negotiations with the Taliban, which will probably be the new policy, trying to replicate the "success" in Iraq with the Sunni Awakening Councils. The idea is to offer the Taliban a share of power if they give up, allowing the US to concentrate on wiping out their friends in "terrorist camps" along the Pakistan border. This is derided by hardliners as appeasement. In any case, it is unlikely the Taliban will suddenly agree to get along with the detested Karzai and the heathen invaders. Such "coalitions" never last long without one side being destroyed. The comparison with Iraq is apples and oranges. And ungovernable tribal lands on the Pakistani border will remain just that.

Plans to attack Iran look laughable in this context. There are already rumours that Iran is beginning to look more favourably on the Taliban, which means US plans in Afghanistan will depend on Iran as well as Russia. On Iran, Biden told the MSC: "We will draw upon all the elements of our power -- military and diplomatic, intelligence and law enforcement, economic and cultural." Ali Larijani, the speaker of Iran's parliament, noted Biden's softer tone and called the MSC Obama's decision to send George Mitchell as his envoy to the Middle East a "positive signal". Iran is now waiting for a positive signal in its direction. Obama is painted into this corner, too. This time an Iranian-Afghan one.

Despite all the sympathy Obama has received from around the world, it is hard to translate any of it into support for US policies, either on the part of allies or foes. Nothing much has changed, except that existing problems have worsened, both on the military and economic fronts. Even the prospect of serious negotiations with the Taliban, Iran and Russia raise few hopes. The US would have to back down unilaterally on so many thorny issues that few expect this to happen.

This all looks spookily like the situation in 1961 when president John F Kennedy came to power. The conviction of many is that after initially proposing an escalation of the Vietnam war, the intelligent Kennedy soon realised the pointlessness of it and was about to reverse his position and quickly withdraw -- until his assassination.

Many Americans are calling Afghanistan an unwinnable war and even Obama is now calling for an exit strategy before more troops are sent, much like Democrats were doing in the 1960s. The only way out of his dilemma with the Russians, Iranians and Afghans is to reverse his foolhardy pledge and end the war immediately. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Taliban spreads all over inside Pakistan - Zardari

NEW YORK, Feb 13 (Reuters) - The Taliban has established itself across a large part of Pakistan, forcing the country to fight a war against the hardline Islamist group that is about Pakistan's own survival, President Asif Zardari told CBS News.

"(The Taliban) do have a presence in huge amounts of land in our side. Yes, that is the fact," Zardari told "60 Minutes" in an interview to be broadcast on Sunday, excerpts of which were released on Friday.

U.S. President Barack Obama said this week there was no doubt terrorists were operating in safe havens in the tribal regions of Pakistan, and the United States wanted to make sure Islamabad was a strong ally in fighting that threat.

Obama and Zardari spoke by telephone on Wednesday, the Pakistani foreign ministry said. The two discussed the surge in violence by al Qaeda and the Taliban, which has stepped up its insurgency against U.S. forces and the Afghan government.

Zardari said Pakistan had been in denial about the Taliban in the past. "Our forces weren't increased ... . We have weaknesses and they are taking advantage of that weakness," he said.

Zardari has now put 120,000 soldiers into the fight against the Taliban, despite concerns among many Pakistanis that it is fighting a proxy war for the United States.

"We're not doing anybody a favor," Zardari said. "We are aware of the fact it's ... Taliban... trying to take over the state of Pakistan.

"So, we're fighting for the survival of Pakistan. We're not fighting for the survival of anybody else."

Zardari, who was elected last year after the assassination of his wife Benazir Bhutto in 2007, rejected suggestions that he lacks the full support of the military and intelligence services, saying he was confident they were behind him.

"If that wasn't the case, then Islamabad would have fallen because obviously if the army doesn't do its job, these men are not restricted. They've blown up the Marriott Hotel before. They've attacked us inland before. They would be all around us, wouldn't they?" he said. (Reporting by Claudia Parsons; Editing by Xavier Briand)

Pakistan has surrendered before India: LeT

Srinagar Slamming Pakistan's probe report into the Mumbai terror attacks, the banned Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT) militant outfit on Thursday accused Islamabad of implicating its leaders in the case 'to get a pat on its back from India and the US'.

"Pakistan has surrendered before India.... LeT was not behind the Mumbai terror attack at all," spokesman of the outfit Abdullah Gaznavi claimed in Srinagar.

The outfit condemned Pakistan's decision to probe its senior commander Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi and the filing of FIR against others in the Mumbai terror attack case.

"LeT strongly condemns the filing of FIR...It seems that Pakistan has lodged the FIR to get a pat from India and Amercia," Gaznavi said over phone.

"It (India) has implicated LeT in the Mumbai terror attack which is mere allegation," Gaznavi said.

"We want to ask the Pakistan's interior ministry chief Rehman Malik whom does he want to please," the spokesman said.

"The US had lent open support to India and put pressure on Pakistan," Gaznavi said.

www.historyofjihad.org

Please visit this website to know about the true concept of Jihad in Islam:

www.historyofjihad.org

By aiding Pak, US can inadvertantly aid terror

By M.V. Kamath

Newly elected US President Barack Obama has now done better than British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. The latter equates Pakistan-sponsored terrorism with what he believes “solving the Kashmir problem”. There is no “Kashmir problem”. That is in the minds only of the anti-India bureaucrats who have long haunted the US States Department and the British Foreign Office. They were the ones, right from the start of 1948 who created the Kashmir ‘problem’. It served them two purposes: One, to have a reliable ally in South Asia; another, to gain Pakistan’s support to contain—and finally destroy—the communist state of the Soviet Union. To achieve that end, both countries, in collision, were willing to hurt India to the extent possible. And that they did consistently and without batting an eyelid. Literally billions of dollars were showered on Pakistani Armed Forces without giving a single thought that the military supplies would invariably be used against India and India alone.

When President Eisenhower put forth the lame excuse that US guns were not meant to be aimed at India, it was V K Krishna Menon who acidly retorted that the United States had yet to manufacture a gun that could shoot only in one direction. Both the US and the UK in the past have been guilty of supporting dictatorial regimes in Pakistan whose sole aim was to destroy India with a thousand cuts. Now for Miliband to say that he has “no evidence of the Pakistani state directing terrorist activities” means that he is either deliberately blind to realities or very poorly informed.

According to an article published in the latest issue of Power Politics, the ISI has circulated two maps among the Pakistani Armed Forces, one of which targets North India as the region which is expected to be converted into “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. Hasn’t Miliband heard of the ISI? A large part of every dollar or pound donated to Pakistan as economic aid goes to sustain the Pakistani Army’s terrorist organisations. If Obama and Miliband are not aware of that, they are doing their own country great disservice. For the former to say US military aid will only be given if Pakistan fulfils its obligation to contain terrorism is neither here nor there. Pakistan will turn to China.

Already it has said that it doesn’t need Obama’s advice. What comes as a shock is to learn that US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, democrat John Kerry wants his country to triple the current aid it gives to Pakistan. Pakistan deserves no aid. A high proportion of any aid, economic or otherwise, goes into Army—and later into terrorist—pockets. Pakistan’s claim to Jammu & Kashmir rests on the theory that it has a Muslim majority. The facts show otherwise. Jammu has a large non-Muslim majority, as has Ladakh. That apart, after the Shimla Pact, Islamabad was duty bound to honour existing boundaries. It has consistently broken the Pact over the last decade. That calls for severe condemnation.

But more importantly, the very concept of the infamous Two-Nation Theory was thrown overboard the day Bangladesh was formed. After that, Pakistan has no business to raise the so-called ‘Kashmir issue’. That issue has long been dead and buried. And now, after the December elections, the Kashmiri people have said in clear terms that they are more interested in getting access to water, electricity and housing, than in separatism. If Miliband doesn’t know that, he needs to be educated. Linking terrorism with the so-called ‘Kashmir Issue’ is an excuse for the Pakistan Armed Forces to milk both the US and Britain, who have their own agenda. One can understand United States naivette.

But Britain should know from decades of colonial experience that Afghanistan is uncontrollable, as is the North West Frontier Province. Pakistan is a rump state. Its writ hardly runs in the Frontier and Tribal areas. Baluchistan is in no way better placed. And Sind would be happy to get out of Punjabi clutches. If Pakistan continues to exist, it is because the United States has a stake in it. The day the United States stops pampering Pakistan will be the day Pakistan collapses like a house of cards, unless China comes to its rescue.

If the United States and Britain want Pakistan to stand on its feet it is not out of any love for the Pakistani people but for strictly geopolitical reasons. If China is interested in keeping Pakistan alive, it is because of India. Keeping Pakistan at loggerheads with India serves Beijing’s purpose. If India and Pakistan come to terms, the losers will be China as much as the western powers led by the United States—and they know if full well. President Obama may sound demanding but, given Washington’s compulsions, he will have to keep Pakistan on his side. Whatever Obama may have in mind, his first priority will always be US interests and Islamabad knows how to cash in on it. If Washington walks out, Pakistan knows that it can always turn to its other patron, China, and China, one may be sure, will be only too willing to assume its new role in the sub-continent. The wise thing for the United States to do is to let Afghanistan stew in its own juice. Why blame the Taliban or al Qaeda when both are America’s own creations. As you sow, so you reap and presently the United States is reaping the poisonous crops whose seeds it had willingly planted.

Democracy cannot be imposed on Afghanistan, Baluchistan or North West Frontier Province, which have their own tribal culture which needs to be respected. They must be left to their fate? But where will that leave Pakistan whose pretensions to statehood to have been exposed time and again? All these fruitless years it has been run either by the Armed Forces with their medieval outlook or by feudal overlords like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who held 12,000 acres of land in Larkana and ruled like a king. Legend had it that one could roam the countryside on horseback for an entire day and never leave Bhutto-owned property. If Pakistan has any wisdom, it will join India to form a sub-continental confederation, even while keeping its sovereignty intact.

Let it be remembered that at the Muslim League session held in Lahore in December 1924, it was resolved inter alia that “the existing provinces of India shall be united under a common government on a federal basis so that each province shall have full and complete provincial autonomy, the functions of the central government being confined to such matter only as are of general and common concern”. Even as late as December 1932, the memorandum submitted by Muslim delegates at the Round Table Conference demanded a federal constitution and provincial autonomy and linked statutory majorities with a guarantee that “the Muslims should form governments in those areas of North West and North East India where they had such majorities”. What was said in 1932 holds good to this day. Help promote confederation, Shri Miliband. That will be a win-win situation for all. Even for Obama’s United States. Pakistan can then live an independent but tension-free life aimed at prosperity for all forgetting its hate-filled subservient past and looking forward to a self-filling future of great and wondrous prospects.

The ISI has circulated two maps among the Pakistani Armed Forces, one of which targets North India as the region which is expected to be converted into “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. Hasn’t Miliband heard of the ISI? A large part of every dollar or pound donated to Pakistan as economic aid goes to sustain the Pakistani Army’s terrorist organisations. If Obama and Miliband are not aware of that, they are doing their own country great disservice.

Mahatma Gandhi would have resorted to satyagraha against pubs

By Justice (Retd) Dr M Rama Jois

If Ram Sainiks honestly believed that going of boys and girls to pubs resulted in their moral and material abandonment, which is injurious to national interest, the method of opposing it should have been in conformity with the approved moral and civilised behaviour. Their indulging in indecent and violent attack against pub-goers including women is condemnable and constitutes an offence punishable.

The recent physical and spoken assault on women going to pubs in Mangalore by those calling themselves Sri Ram Sainiks has been highly unjust and indecent and has very rightly come in for severe condemnations far and wide in the country. This is the evidence of sanctity attached to womanhood and the highest esteem in which the women are held in Bharatiya culture. As defined in Times of India (31-1-09), pub culture decoded the term stands for women drinking and socialising with men in public places, the desire behind this is obviously carnal between males and females who are not husband and wife. If Ram Sainiks honestly believed that going of boys and girls to pubs resulted in their moral and material abandonment, which is injurious to national interest, the method of opposing it should have been in conformity with the approved moral and civilised behaviour. Their indulging in indecent and violent attack against pub-goers including women is condemnable and constitutes an offence punishable. The Government of Karnataka has rightly arrested them and initiated criminal proceedings against them.

It is for this reason, Mahatma Gandhi declared that the means through which an end is to be achieved should be just and fair. It is on this principle, Mahatma Gandhi adopted the path of non-violence in the freedom struggle against unjust foreign rule. It is because he succeeded in this unique method adopted in human history, he became Mahatma and came to be respected by the whole world in view of the great faith Mahatma Gandhi had in non-violent methods. The firm belief of Mahatma Gandhi in morality and good character is evidenced by the firm stand he had taken against consumption of intoxicated liquors. In his book entitled My Picture of Free India written on the eve of achieving political independence, he unequivocally declared as follows:-

“I hold drinking spirituous liquors in India to be more criminal than the petty thefts which I see starving men and women committing and for which they are prosecuted and punished… I advocate the summary punishment of those who manufacture the fiery liquid and those even who persist in drinking it notwithstanding repeated warnings. I do not hesitate forcibly to prevent my children from rushing into fire or deep waters. Rushing to red water is far more dangerous than rushing to a raging furnace or flooded stream. The latter destroys only the body, the former destroys both body and soul.”

This view of Mahatma Gandhi indicates that he was very firm on preventing youths falling into the injurious habit of consumption of intoxicating liquors or drugs. By and large youths go to pubs to satisfy their sensual desires without realising that it is sure to result in moral and material abandonment and they will become unfit to bear the family or social responsibilities. Therefore, it is not correct to call it pub culture, as it is a vice and not a virtue. It is therefore clear that if Mahatma Gandhi were to be alive, he would have resorted to satyagraha in protest against youths going to pubs but in a peaceful and civilised manner as it is well known that as part of struggle for freedom, Mahatma Gandhi had directed Congressmen to boycott liquor shops and even resort to picketing liquor shops. In view of this forceful idea of Mahatma Gandhi, Article 47 was incorporated in the Constitution directing the Union and the States to make law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. Moreover, Article 39(c) mandates the Union and the States to take necessary steps to protect children and youth against their moral and material abandonment. In accordance with the views of Mahatma Gandhi and the directive of Article 47, law prohibiting manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor was enacted in Karnataka after independence. It was in force till 1957.

The Congress Party which claims to be the followers of Mahatma Gandhi repealed the law prohibiting manufacture and sale of liquors in 1957 in Karnataka. Smt. Yashodharamma Dasappa, a true Gandhian and brave woman, resigned her ministership protesting against such a step. In spite of this, loyalty to liquor proved to be more powerful than to Mahatma Gandhi and the Constitution. Liquor shops are permitted to be opened in all commercial as well as residential localities like hotels and restaurants. It is significant and surprising that large number of liquor shops are allowed on Mahatma Gandhi Road and its vicinity. Pubs belong to the same category. Developing the habit of going to pubs by youth is sure to result in their moral and material abandonment. Under the Constitution, the State has been under a duty to ensure protection against such moral and material abandonment. I am certain that if Mahatma Gandhi were to be alive, he would have launched a powerful satyagraha and picketing against pubs. If Sri Ram Sainiks honestly felt so and wanted to protest it to protect youths in national interest, they should have resorted to non-violent satyagraha and picketing. But instead of doing so, the indecent attack made on women is most condemnable and onslaught on the most cherished value of womanhood in our culture. Such a situation is the direct result of failure to implement Articles 47 and 39 of the Constitution. The wide and expanding pub activities and the importance attached to sensual desires by large number of youths indicate what Swami Vivekananda stated a century ago, which has become true. He had said:

“Shall India die? Then from the world all spirituality will be extinct, all moral perfection will be extinct, all sweet-souled sympathy for religion will be extinct, all ideality will be extinct, and in its place will reign the duality of lust and luxury as the male and female deities, with money as its priest fraud, force and competition as its ceremonies, and the human soul as its sacrifice.”

The situation is alarming. Substantial number of youths are falling to bad and immoral carnal desires resulting in their moral and material abandonment, which is highly injurious to the future of our nation, because youths are inflammable material like petrol, if enlightened and regulated they constitute enormous source of energy for the nation, but if ignited, they would be disastrous like forest fire. This is a matter for serious consideration by all right-thinking persons.

(The writer is a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court and former Governor of Jharkhand and Bihar. He can be contacted at “Sri. Shaila”, No. 870/C, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore–560 010.)

US House passes resolution on Gandhi's non-violence

Washington (IANS): The US House of Representatives has passed a resolution recognising Mahatma Gandhi's influence on Martin Luther King Jr and commemorating the golden jubilee anniversary of the American civil rights leader's visit to India in 1959.

Passed Wednesday with a 406 to 0 vote with 26 abstaining, the resolution recalls how King's study of Gandhian philosophy helped shape the Civil Rights Movement.

"The trip to India impacted Dr King in a profound way, and inspired him to use non-violence as an instrument of social change to end segregation and racial discrimination in America throughout the rest of his work during the Civil Rights Movement," it says.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will Thursday send off a cultural delegation comprising Martin Luther King III, and US House representatives John Lewis, Spencer Bachus and Herbie Hancock to India to commemorate King's tour.

It will begin in New Delhi and travel around India to some of the principal sites associated with Gandhi's work.

Lewis, often called "one of the most courageous persons the Civil Rights Movement ever produced", introduced the House resolution. Five other Congressmen, John Conyers, Jim McDermott, Robert C. Scott, Henry Johnson and Adam B. Schiff co-sponsored it.

King and his wife, Coretta Scott King, travelled to India from Feb 10 to March 10, 1959. Upon their return to the US, King and other leaders of the civil rights movement drew on Gandhi's ideas to transform American society.

During his month long stay in India, King met the then Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, land reform leader Vinoba Bhave and other influential Indian leaders to discuss issues of poverty, economic policy and race relations.

All this reaffirmed and deepened King's commitment to non-violence and revealed to him the power that non-violent resistance holds in political and social battles, the resolution says.

McDermott, co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, speaking on the resolution said Gandhi's principle of satyagraha - non-violence - inspired change for the better throughout the world, and particularly in the US.

In a radio address to India in 1959, King had said: "The spirit of Gandhi is so much stronger today than some people believe". That statement is as true today as it was 50 years ago, said McDermott.