C I C L Eth

e

A u t u m n T e r m I s s u e 2 0 1 4

Ed

ito

ria

lThis Editorial is not one that I write with an Editor-in-Chief ’s pen, but rather with that of an enthusiast who is making an attempt to resurrect a publication that addresses issues that, in my opinion, must be pondered upon by members of this community. Though the number of budding political commentators and analysts from school has increased exponentially on different social platforms, sadly, opinions are more often than not uninformed and biased. Before going further, dear readers, do understand that I am not condemning our beloved spectators, but rather claiming full responsibility and fault for not having published any material to be pondered upon. Herein lies the responsibility of the Editorial Board: to capture and present intellectually stimulating opinion pieces and analysis of socio-political events that perspire in the world beyond these 70 acres.

Each day, as fresh pages of History are written, we as a Board are often left overwhelmed, struggling to decide what to cover. In a country where there is no dearth of opinions, and in a voltaile geopolitical scenario where there is always a talking point in the news, The Circle battles its own existence, but in doing so, highlights just what is worth preserving in our school. The rapidly evolving dynamics of different issues has, in the past, rendered a lot of our articles banal. Nevertheless, in this particular edition, we have tried to cover a vast array of issues ranging from social to international, and most obviously, political.

We recently saw the clocks wind backwards to an almost imperialist era, as the historic referendum presented Scotland with an opportunity to break the centuries old Union. It is an area that immediately caught our interest, for we thought it pertinent to review the relevance of independence from an erstwhile colonial force. Another issue which we have interested ourselves in covering is the question of Hong Kong’s status as a Special Administrative Territory of China. As people around the world sit on the edges of their sofas to watch an economically powerful Hong Kong question a repressive and undemocratic Beijing, we think it is essential that in India, we start to understand the value of our democracy, which China has compromised on to achieve its economic prowess.

Then comes the national picture. One of our articles presents to the readers a comparison of the first and current Prime Ministers of India. Both of them have established legacies of their own, but in many ways, it is the legacy of the former that the latter seeks to discard. We evaluate what it is about each of them that India ought to draw from. We have also analysed former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s abilities during the ten-year ruling of the UPA. Moving on to exploring the historical aspect of this publication, we delve ourselves into questioning if the French revolution really was a revolution.

It is an issue that has been long awaited, but we hope that the diversity of our articles rekindles the light that is the guiding force behind political and intellectual discourse on Chandbagh. As always, we encourage you to provide us with feedback, and look forward to hearing your views on the issue.

Signing off,Guruansh SinghEditor-in-Chief

Co

nte

nts

The Circ l e

Globe Trotting

Nationalism or Security? The Scottish Decision 01

Boko Haram 02

David vs Goliath? 04

In Retrospect: The Gaza Problem 06

India Scan

The Amethi Transgression 07

The Man and the Times: Manmohan Singh 08

Of Trysts and Prime Ministers 10

Reflections

Historical Circle Essay Writing Competition

Editorial Board

Viva La Nation? 12

A Tale of Two Worlds 14

Legality, Morality and Future of Russia’s Bold Decisions 16

Editor-in-ChiefGuruansh Singh

EditorDhruv Johri

Designers Ritvik KarUdai Nath Behl

Master-in-Charge Ms Purnima Dutta

Special ThanksYash Johri

(Ex-561-O ‘13)Dhruv Pais

ContributorsDevesh Sahai

Dhruv KharabandaDivyansh Goel

Harshvardhan SinghIshaan KapoorPulkit AgarwalUdayan Sinha

Arnav Jain

1

Glo

be

Tr

ott

ing

Autumn 2014

Nationalism or Security? The Scottish Decision

For most of us outside Scotland, images from the epic film Braveheart (1995) with the flamboyant William Wallace crying “Freedom” even as he was being sliced up alive, remains as the only reminder of any idea of Scottish nationalism, even though ‘nation’, in the modern sense of the word, was to come much later. But

Braveheart is a film, based much more on folklore than facts. In the real world, all that is known about Braveheart William Wallace was that he posed a serious enough threat to the English for the King to put a price on William’s head. That was about 700 years ago. And that is how far back one can trace Scotland’s difficult relation with her neighbour. The relation waxed and waned over the centuries, but there have always been Scotsmen who preferred greater autonomy in their functioning and governance – if not independence – from what is the United Kingdom. The strife remained and resurfaced again and again over the centuries.

Fast forward to the last year of the 20th century. The year 1999 saw the establishment of a Scottish Parliament at Edinburgh with legal and policy making powers, but dependence for grants from London continued. And then, in 2011, the Scottish Nationalist Party led by Alex Salmond won a landslide victory, pointing to the fact that Scottish nationalism was very much alive and kicking and raising hopes of the nationalists amongst the Scots. The SNP and the British Prime Minister then signed a deal agreeing Scotland to have a referendum on the issue of Scottish independence in 2012. It was then that the date for the referendum was set for September 2014. This was the birth of the draft Scottish Referendum Bill which proposed three main outcomes: Full devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament, adoption of Calman type fiscal reform or full independence.

Finally, in the referendum held on September 18, 55% of the voters in Scotland rejected independence from the UK. However, the picture conveyed by these figures belies the underlying story and this does not seem be the end of the Scottish Story. The 45% ‘Yes’ vote put an end to the famous claim that “people in liberal democracies, unlike oppressed minorities in brutal dictatorships, don’t ever need their own countries.”

One of the implications of a ‘Yes’ vote is that the Holyrood – home of the Scottish parliament would have been offered extensive powers. Thus, here we have an amalgam of the impossible blend: an independent Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. This gives rise to the West Lothian question, which states that while Westminster won’t have the right to vote on Scottish issues, but at the same time Holyrood will still be able to govern England. This has been rectified by the fact that the only entity in the UK without its own legislature is England itself. England has been forced into giving more powers to Scotland. It shows that Scotland and other countries such as Wales will have more power in governing and manipulating Westminster. So, right now Scotland enjoys more devolved powers and has the right to set its own income tax rates and the right to pass legislation on issues such as pension etc. It is entering a new era of more power and fiscal autonomy. England has lost its power to keep the union together in the form of a uniform parliamentary system and has become a linchpin which will succumb to Scotland’s every beck and all. Which also sets a dangerous precedence.

One can only wait and watch how the Cameron government in will play its cards in the upcoming 2015 general elections in order to maintain incumbency. The deep lying message in all this turmoil has been the fact that almost half the people in Scotland prefer economic uncertainty rather than a union. Nationalism has trumped economic issues yet again.

Dhruv Kharbanda examines the implications a ‘Yes’ majority would have had in the Scottish referendum

2

Glo

be

Tr

ottin

g

The Circ l e

Boko Haram

Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad (People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad), more commonly known as the Boko Haram was declared a terrorist group in 2013. They propagate the denial of Western education by terming it as a sin. The main cause for the creation of the terrorist

organization was the demand for a separate Islamic state and detachment from Nigeria. The northeast region of Nigeria constitutes a majority of Muslims. The condition in this part of Nigeria is dismal. The Boko Haram practices a version of Islam in which it is forbidden to practice politics under a Western regime. The ‘Western’ regime could range from elections or even wearing Western cloths such as shirts. So Boko Haram has waged an internal war to overturn the government and create an Islamic state.

Boko Haram has turned to extreme measures after their leader Mohammed Yusuf was killed in police custody. Mohammed Yusuf‘s body was shown on the Nigerian national television to send a message to all members of Boko Haram. The terrorist group along with its new leader Abubakar Shekau condemned the actions of the government and took on a more brutal role to achieve their goal as well as make the Nigerian government pay for the humiliation of their fallen leader.

In 2013, the members of Boko Haram were responsible for beheading sixty-five students with a chainsaw. All UN member nations have condemned such barbarism as an act against humanity. The Boko Haram is also guilty of numerous bombings, which have killed over 15000 civilians.

The Boko Haram is also responsible for having kidnapped two hundred schoolgirls. This not only grabbed the attention of the world but also proved the government of Nigeria’s to be in a state of decrepitude. While the Nigerian government has failed to take any decisive steps to either punish the Boko Haram or rescue the girls, their leader recently released a statement that he was going to sell the 200 kidnapped girls in the market.

Abubakar Shekau has employed women to carry out his bombings. The women of the Boko Haram are converted into live or suicide bombers and have been deployed to carry out suicide bomb attacks in many public areas such as markets, town halls and even schools. Boko Haram has not only created a commotion at a national level, but took to the international stage when they kidnapped the wife of the Vice President of Cameroon.

One would question as to why the other nations are not helping Nigeria in terms of weapons and military support. This is because the army of Nigeria has been repeatedly

accused of misusing their authority and opposing the international community’s work against human rights

The Boko Haram is also responsible for having kidnapped two hundred schoolgirls. This not only grabbed the attention of the world but also proved the government of Nigeria’s to be in a state of decrepitude.

Udayan Sinha reviews the Boko Haram situation in Nigeria

3Autumn 2014

violation. This has led to a situation where Nigeria is not being able to curtail the Boko Haram and no nation is willing to support them. It remains to be seen whether, in the course of their action against the Islamic State, the international community will take cognizance of the activities and role of the Boko Haram.

Most members of Boko Haram do not believe in the ideologies of the faction but is in need of money that the government is not being able to provide. The economically weaker sections of society have used the Boko Haram as a method of protest.

The USA claims to suspect that the attacks that Boko Haram has carried out on the UN building and police headquarters in Nigeria are extremely sophisticated and could have been helped by Al-Qaeda. This not only puts Nigeria in a peculiar situation but also has implications about the growing power of groups and organizations such as Boko Haram. This is an issue that needs to be sorted out before the world has another 9/11 on its hands.

Glo

be

Tr

ottin

g

The Circ l e

David vs Goliath

A recent ar t ic le t i t l ed “Rif t s forged by Occupy Centra l hard to hea l” in the Chinese s ta te run newspaper the People’s Dai ly concluded with two opt ions to reso lve the Hong Kong protes t s :

“The first is that positive power imposes pressure on the Occupy Central forces and compels them to end their illicit actions. If this happens, then it is Hong Kong’s foundation of the rule of law that will save it.

Another scenario is that the pressure from the Hong Kong public is not able to triumph over Occupy Central forces and the protesters will be forcefully removed.”

Given that the above newspaper represents the Chinese communist par ty’s pos i t ion, th i s ar t ic le i s a c lear indicat ion that the Chinese government i s not wi l l ing to compromise

on i t s dec i s ion on e lectora l re form for the e lect ions to the leg i s la t ive counci l dated the 31st of August , 2014. Hong Kong’s chie f const i tut ional author i ty i s a Chief Execut ive e lected by an e lectora l co l lege of 1200 c i t i zens . The e lectora l re form proposed by Bei j ing on the 31st of August thi s year i s the format ion of a nominat ing committee to nominate two to three indiv idual s for the post of Chief Execut ive ( for the upcoming 2017 Chief Execut ive e lect ions) . Pro-democracy advocates

oppose thi s move because they be l ieve the new committee would not a l low candidates are not looked at favorably by Bei j ing to s tand for e lect ion to the post of Chief Execut ive . This move i s a t odds with the terms of the hand-over of Hong Kong f rom Bri ta in to China in 1997, which ca l led for universa l suf f rage to be provided to the c i t i zens of Hong Kong in due course . However in the present s i tuat ion, even i f universa l suf f rage i s made ava i lable to the Hong Kong people , they would s t i l l be e lect ing leaders nominated by the Bei j ing author ized nominat ing committee as appropr iate .

In oppos i t ion to the above move, pro-democracy ‘Hong Kongers’ have engul fed the s t reet s of Hong Kong, they have been camping on the s t reet s a large number of them students for over one month now. Their reso lve i s very s t rong having withstood tear gas a t tacks by the loca l enforcement agencies on the 28th of September, scuf f le s with pro-Bei j ing suppor ters as wel l a s the ser ia l censor ing of internet communicat ions by the government agencies . The pro-democracy advocates inc lude academics , lawyers and a large number of s tudents , there are few leaders with bus iness interes t s involved with the pro-democracy movement , a l though China’s r ichest man, founder of Al ibaba, Jack Ma has expressed sympathy for the young people of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong protes t s have crossed s imply be ing demands for universa l suf f rage for and took an expl ic i t ly ant i -China

The electoral reform proposed by Beijing on the 31st of August this year is the formation of a nominating committee to nominate two to three individuals for the post of Chief Executive (for the upcoming 2017 Chief Executive elections).

Yash Johri (ex-561-O, ’13): Which way is Beijing going with resolving the Hong Kong Protests

The pro-democracy advocates include academics, lawyers and a

large number of students, there are few leaders with business interests

involved with the pro-democracy movement, although China’s richest

man, founder of Alibaba, Jack Ma has expressed sympathy for the

young people of Hong Kong.

4

5Autumn 2014

approach with the protes tors a t tacking the Chinese government by unfur l ing a large poster of Uighur scholar I lham Tohti who has been sentenced to l i fe impri sonment on the charge of sedi t ion, Toht i , h i s daughter in an interv iew with America’s NPR (Nat ional Publ ic Radio) sa id , Toht i was a scholar dedicated to improving unders tanding between the Uighur community and the Han Chinese and had been wrongful ly charged.

The s i tuat ion in the shor t term i s a s ta lemate with the pro-democracy Hong Kong protes tors a t t ract ing an immense amount of internat ional a t tent ion and the Chinese government s tay ing s i lent , wai t ing for the protes tors to t i re and return home. In my opinion, thi s i s a c las s ic ta le of David and Gol iath with the pro-democracy voices having the correct intent ions but the Chinese government just having rea l i s t ic power over wor ld opinion as wel l a s the Hong Kong spec ia l adminis t rat ive reg ion. Whi le the Occupy Centra l movement’s mora le i s h igh i t wi l l be interes t ing to see how this crusade moves forward g iven the c lear unders tanding of the intent ions of the Chinese government in the above quoted ar t ic le . It i s a quest ion of the manner in which Bei j ing i s going to dea l with thi s s i tuat ion.

Glo

be

Tr

ottin

g

The Circ l e

In Retrospect: The Gaza Problem

The religious rivalry in the Middle East saw its inception once a Jewish nation was placed bang in the middle of a devout Muslim community

after World War II. If the orthodox Muslim wars were not enough, the West decided that adding another religiously volatile nation would not aggravate the problems at all. Little did they know that two violent Arab Israeli conflicts later, by 1967, Israel would erect a formidable aggressive army and annex the Gaza strip to assert its share of power in the region.

About 40 years later, the volatile region erupted in a burst of violence when Palestine decided to reclaim the strip which was once theirs. In 2004, the first glimpse of violence broke out, in 2014; it is an all out war between the two nations. In 2005, the orthodox Islamic political party Hamas won the general elections in Palestine. In 2007, the Hamas dissolved the Fatah government and took military control of the Gaza strip. Over the past seven years the conflict continuously escalated and

became of a growing global concern. Then came along the Arab Spring conflict. This caused the involvement of several terrorist groups and rebel factions and the intensification of the violence on the Gaza strip.

On December 2008, a wave of Israeli missiles massacred around 225 Palestinians and a mutual ceasefire was called in January 2009. This lasted about as long as a flight from India to the USA. Within hours of its ratifications the proposing nation of Palestine launched 18 missiles into Israeli airspace and was met with an equally aggressive aerial response. The peak of the conflict is what 2014 has managed to achieve. I strongly support the West in their call for intervention, but beg to differ when the intervention is biased. USA has provided Israel with military aid to fight against a Muslim community as they feel ‘obliged’ towards the Jewish population for not having intervened on their behalf during the genocide in Nazi Germany. What the US has conveniently overlooked is the fact that they are trying to simultaneously solve an internal Muslim conflict in Syria. They propose to do this by intervening and then hope for compromise and here I believe lies the problem.

The United nations have convened several GA and Security Council meetings regarding this predicament. The ceasefire of 2009 was initiated by the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council and even after it failed the UN has decided to launch another ceasefire command in 2014. In my opinion, military intervention is the ideal option for the UN to resort to as both conflicting nations have previously ignored the cry for peace in the form of a ceasefire. Moreover I do believe that sanction must be imposed on either side as only once their resources are cut off will they realize the need to terminate the conflict. Further, the UN should push for bilateral peace talks between the two nations such that they reach a mutual consensus regarding Gaza. Further, all external military personnel present within the warzone should be withdrawn and the two countries left without any external assistance. The long lasting rivalry between the Islam regions and Israel in the Middle East must come to an end so that the ideal of world peace may be propagated by the UN and as the cliché goes, there can be no peace without war.

On December 2008, a wave of Israeli missiles massacred around 225

Palestinians and a mutual ceasefire was called in January 2009. This

lasted about as long as a flight from India to the USA. Within hours of its ratifications the proposing nation of

Palestine launched 18 missiles into Israeli airspace and was met with an

equally aggressive aerial response.

Ishaan Kapoor explores the roots of the Gaza conflict

6

7Autumn 2014

In

dia

Sc

anThe Amethi Transgression

There ran an article in The Hindu during the General Elections earlier this year, discussing the reasons why the Amethi ‘myth’ had been successfully debunked. What is interesting to note here is that while it is safe to conclude that Rahul Gandhi was indeed challenged for the first time in the last three elections from his

constituency, the fact that this myth is only being debunked after Modi’s visit to Amethi was displeasing.

The reason I felt the challenge for Amethi was quite explicit this time, is not only because of the final numbers that indicated a much smaller win for Gandhi than in the previous election, but also because both the BJP and the AAP fielded strong candidates from Amethi in Smriti Irani and Kumar Vishwas respectively. Moreover, the campaigning styles of both these leaders too, were in stark contrast to that of Rahul Gandhi. While there can be no doubting that a leader who inherits his position almost as if by divine law, would be disconnected from the people, Rahul Gandhi should have known that he might have to face a ferocious battle the moment AAP announced their candidate, especially considering the surge in popularity of Kejriwal at the time. Gandhi still refrained from visiting Amethi, and while Vishwas went from door to door to understand people’s grievances, Gandhi assumed that much of the 3,70,000 votes that he won by in 2009, would allow him to sail through once again. This arrogance was only brought to question when a shaken Rahul Gandhi took the pains to visit Amethi, sadly enough though, only on the day of polling.

Coming back to my fundamental argument: why must the Amethi myth take so long to be debunked? Are we truly a democracy if we cannot value ground level politics? Does it have to take a Modi to storm into Amethi - the Gandhi fiefdom as it was for the Gandhi household to wake up? While the Congress saw the rout in the election from quite a distance, perhaps due to the rather inevitability of their defeat, it must not have taken so long to realize that the same inevitability didn’t apply to Gandhi’s winning his own seat from Amethi. Thus, I feel, no matter how much of a watershed moment 16th May might be considered in our democracy few years down the line, the retention of the Amethi and Rae Bareilly seats, have sent the wrong signal out to our politicians: that perhaps we are still not embracing ground level leaders.

The problem with Amethi seems to have been the lack of alternatives. It has been pointed out often enough in the media, and by leaders like Vishwas especially, that Amethi has no ‘real’ reason to vote for the dynasty, apart from the fact that they are, as they say, “naam ke neta.” This time however, even as the parties foolhardily planted some of their stronger candidates here, we saw that these naam ke neta continued to hold on to their inherited position. Many pundits who have compared this election to the 1977 one, when Sanjay Gandhi lost his seat from this very constituency, have no answer as to why the saffron wave that managed to sweep much of UP, somehow missed the two important blue roses in the middle. Will this de-motivate the parties from a possible gamble in Amethi next time? Does it mean then, that it is almost impossible today to defeat the Goliath’s of Indian politics in their own backyard?

The main issue that emerged from the mandate in Amethi this May is that Rahul Gandhi has successfully established himself as a leader, who is not capable of gathering mass support. While Modi contested from Varanasi, and affected a cache of about 20 seats in the area, Gandhi contested from Amethi only so to ensure his seat into a very Congress-deficient Lok Sabha. Let us hope then, that we do see a turnover in the near future, where not only are the dynasts uprooted if they fail to work in their constituency, but even the Modis and Advanis are challenged so that they don’t turn the Vadodras and Gandhinagars of today into the Amethi’s of tomorrow!

Rahul Gandhi still refrained from visiting Amethi, and while Vishwas went from door to door to understand people’s grievances, Gandhi assumed that much of the 3,70,000 votes that he won by in 2009, would allow him to sail through once again. This arrogance was only brought to question when a shaken Rahul Gandhi took the pains to visit Amethi, sadly enough though, only on the day of polling.

Pulkit Agarwal revisits the General Elections in 2014 and the Congress’ diminishing popularity in Amethi

enough instances that corroborate it. The Indian economy, under Singh, failed to reach its full potential. With the world increasingly viewing India as the ‘next big thing’, India constantly failed to deliver. The economy is to a large extent, in the hands of the government, which in turn, is to a large extent, in the hands of the Prime Minister. Anybody with even a little mathematical acumen will conclude that the Prime Minister is the key in propelling the economy forward, or causing hindrances in its journey. Now, if there is anything one can expect from an economist at the apex, it is economic prosperity – and Manmohan Singh was an economist at the apex.

With his background in economics, the economic progress should have been his claim to fame. It was potentially his key to success. However, Manmohan Singh did not only waste the opportunity of taking the economy forward, but also succeeded in stagnating the economy at a time when it was least expected. Therefore, the Indian mass lost faith in Singh’s abilities. As economists continually study the forces that pull the economy down, the blame expectedly fell on the government – its corruption, decisions, and a lot more. Manmohan Singh, in all this mess, lacked a stand. Here is where the perception of Singh as a puppet emerges – from the Coal Gate scam to the 2G scam, Manmohan Singh’s name was omnipresent, but his stand remained elusive.

I am an Indian citizen, and hence have my own opinion on the man, as a political figure, a public personality, or whatever it may be. Contrary to what is written above, I find myself in a fix. While the last ten years testify to Manmohan Singh’s ineffectiveness, my respect for Singh is only slightly eroded – not extinguished. Manmohan Singh, as I see it, must have done something right to have served two terms as Prime Minister. It was under Singh that India rose to prominence in the world of economics. However, it was under Singh that Indian economy plummeted as well. Manmohan Singh radiated a sense of righteousness in that he led a life of simplicity and possibly honesty. However, Manmohan Singh might just go down in history as an honest man who led an extremely corrupt government. Manmohan Singh was a man who saw it all, and faced it all in his tenure, but was forced by circumstances unknown to the rest of us to go along with the decisions of the party.

In

dia

Sc

an

The Circ l e

The Man and The Times: Manmohan Singh

The last ten years of the Indian democracy witnessed one man at the apex – Manmohan Singh. In a country such as India, where every

public figure is subject to scrutiny, one can expect the Prime Minister to fall at the receiving end of gazes from all over. Manmohan Singh, in his tenure, generated different views from different people. With no statistics to back me up when I write this, I still feel that the predominant view was that he was unsuccessful in fulfilling his duties efficiently. I need not write this, but for the sake of introducing a new point, Manmohan Singh was often looked at as a puppet; the public believed that Sonia Gandhi pulled the strings. His silence during his tenure received abundant attention, and led people to believe that he was not the most consequential man around, which should have not been the case considering he was the Prime Minister. In this article, I take it upon myself to be as frank as possible in examining both sides of the story, and to attempt to provide a conclusive opinion on the role that Singh truly played.

In the last ten years, India has been the breeding ground of scams across industries. Inevitably, a multitude of political issues were seen to rise in the last decade. As the Prime Minister of the country, Manmohan Singh was bound to be held accountable to avert these scams or solve these issues. However, Manmohan Singh was slow to take a stand - on the rare occasions that he would take one. His decisions were never his own, as external pressures influenced his decisions and actions. Consequently, after a long decade of slow or no reaction or, the Indian public leveled a plethora of accusations against him, one standing out amongst the others – he had no spine. This view is credible in that there are

Devesh Sahai evaluates the tenure of the only Indian prime minister to serve two full terms in office

With his background in economics, the economic progress should

have been his claim to fame. It was potentially his key to success.

However, Manmohan Singh did not only waste the opportunity of taking the economy forward, but also succeeded in stagnating the

economy at a time when it was least expected.

8

9Autumn 2014

I am an Indian citizen, and hence have my own opinion on the man, as a political figure, a public personality, or whatever it may be. Contrary to what is written above, I find myself in a fix.

A personal analysis from my side suggests that his first term was successful, but his second term was at the other end of the spectrum. As with the Indian public, a public figure’s first impression is soon to fall in oblivion, for it is his/her last impression that catches the public’s eye. Yet this leaves one question unanswered. Whatever

I have written above does not account for his inability to stand by his own dogma.

Sonia Gandhi pulled the strings – whether in the right direction or the wrong, is a discussion to be taken up for another day. The fact remains that Sonia Gandhi did pull the strings. This fails to surprise me. Was it not bound to happen? If we travel back in time to the 2004 elections, and scan for the most dominant figure around, our results with point at Sonia Gandhi, and not Singh. In the build up to the Congress’ resurgence in 2004, it was Sonia Gandhi who connected with the public – who convinced the public that the Congress was worthy of forming the government. Therefore, as callous as my view may seem, Sonia Gandhi’s influence does not surprise me, and should have not been a surprise for anyone at all. In 2004, the public accepted Manmohan Singh not only as the Prime Minister, but also – to be very straightforward - a puppet of Sonia Gandhi. Therefore, it’s not fair to expect a miraculous turn of events, as miracles are for fairy-tales. The government may have failed us, and it is to be blamed for that. For that, you can and should point fingers at the UPA. However, we are accountable for who we vote for and what we know. If we voted for the Congress, we should not be surprised that Manmohan Singh was a subterfuge for Sonia Gandhi. If we are surprised, then we did not think before casting the ballot. We may not be able to justify Manmohan Singh’s lack of stance, but we cannot wash our hands off any responsibility as an electorate who must reflect and consider who and why we vote for.

There are a hundred and one accusations that we can level at the Sing- led government. However, I feel that it is time we stop playing the blame game, and accept what we accepted a decade ago. After all, the government is meant to serve us and not our whims and fancies.

Speeches made by politicians are often dismissed as mere rhetoric, aimed at persuading the listeners about the particular politician’s agenda and objectives. However, a quick look history tells us that powerful speeches have even helped change the course of history. It is therefore pertinent to look at the speeches made by our own politicians – in this case two Prime Ministers - and examine the two leaders’ idea of India. This might be achieved by relating the speeches made by Jawaharlal Nehru on 15th August, 1947 and Narendra Modi on the same day, 67 years later. It is imperative for us to truly understand whether there has been a transition in what the idea of India has been and is, today.

The two statements on first impression itself reflect the times in which they were made; while, Nehru has a more ‘idealistic’ approach to his words, Modi, on the other hand, in a much longer speech, has a more realistic approach and vision for modern India. Nehru’s idealism is apt, since in 1947 India was a new state and it was important for him to recognize the many people who contributed to creation of India and also lay down the basic principles which India would follow in the many years ahead. At the dawn of a new beginning for the new-born nation, the responsibility of setting fundamental ideals for the nation to live by rested on Nehru and though it was slightly Utopian, the speech did succeed in defining what the nation’s tryst with destiny should look like.

The continuity in the two speeches are evident in s the remembrance for all men who sacrificed for the sake of independence of the motherland. The reason Narendra Modi’s words are words to remember is because he takes a comparatively more realistic stance on the issues and affairs of India today. This is because Modi gives his audience a more ‘at home’ setting. This is by saying that for India to prosper in the future it will be imperative to provide for the youth by creating a ‘Digital India’ for all members of Indian society.

What differentiates Modi’s speech from Nehru’s is the actualisation and realisation of the goals set and not the setting of goals. Modi’s Independence Day address shows how far India has come today. Nehru mentioned the “creation of social, economic and political institutions which would ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman”. At a time when the nation was hardly a day old it was not possible for Nehru to objectively

The Circ l e

Of Trysts and Prime MinistersDhruv Johri compares Jawaharlal Nehru’s inaugural address to Narendra Modi’s

In

dia

Sc

an

10

in international politics and mentions in his speech that “A new star rises, the star of freedom in the East, a new hope comes into being, a vision long cherished materializes”. Today, his vision has been somewhat achieved. In Mr Modi’s speech, he mentioned our collaboration with other SAARC nations to “emerge as a world power” and to ably address the battle against poverty. He also mentioned the development of India into a nation of many ‘Model Villages’ and his new scheme to ensure that all members of Parliament will have to develop at least five of these model villages in their constituencies by the 2019 general elections. Such an idea is closely related to the principles of Mahatma Gandhi, somebody who both Prime Ministers looked up to and tried to emulate.

To sum up I would say that both speeches effectively elucidated the ambitions and achievements of the government. Nehru’s charismatic address with its ideals was imperative to be delivered to an audience that was eager to see how the new administrators planned to run the nation. Modi similarly addressed an audience that is eager to know what his government’s stand is towards the ‘at home’ issues.

11Autumn 2014

define what systems and organizations would establish this justice. Today, on the 67th Independence Day Celebrations of this massive democracy, the government is in a position to implement the vision of India with the help of organisations that can achieve the ideals that Nehru set forth.

India’s problems have changed and Narendra Modi seems to be the one better prepared for dealing with their problems in such a speech. Modi talks on the existence of terrorists and rapists in society today and proposes a pragmatic approach to dealing with these issues, such as saying that ‘a terrorist too is somebody’s son’ and what he is today is mostly the result of improper and inadequate education through his childhood. So Mr. Modi proposes to spread awareness at a more basic level by stopping terrorism before the very thought of terror enters the mind of these individuals.

Addressing the socially backward sections of society, Nehru had said that “We cannot encourage communalism or narrow-mindedness”. What is intriguing is that Modi to said “Even after Independence, we have had to face the poison of communalism.” This clearly indicates that communalism is something that was prevalent then and is prevalent now. Despite the two Prime Ministers speaking on it so many years apart, the concern seems to persist, even though Nehru was speaking at a time when the Partition-related communalism had started taking its enormous toll of human lives on both sides of the borders while in 2014, communal violence in scattered incidents perhaps add up to the same toll of lives. So, whatever has been done so far to put an end to the issue, the issue is far from being resolved. Such incidents of communalism should be of particular concern to Mr Modi, and should still be one of his priorities especially after the 2002 riots in Gujarat during his tenure as Chief Minister of that state.

Jawaharlal Nehru envisioned India to be an key player

The two statements on first impression itself reflect the times in which they were made; while,

Nehru has a more ‘idealistic’ approach to his words, Modi, on the other hand, in a much longer

speech, has a more realistic approach and vision for modern

India.

The continuity in the two speeches are evident in s the remembrance for all men who sacrificed for the sake of independence of the motherland. The reason Narendra Modi’s words are words to remember is because he takes a comparatively more realistic stance on the issues and affairs of India today.

France in the 18th century was a place where social structure was inherently interwoven with political structure; essentially France was divided into three orders the nobility, the clergy and the third order of the commons. Without a national identity and divided by social status, religious beliefs and

lingual differences France essentially represented a broken society.

When the French Revolution began with the storming of the Bastille in 1789, no one could have imagined that it would lead to a revolution whose reverberations were felt across Europe. Today, over two centuries later, students across the globe study the Revolution as an example of changing systems in countries and that is what I feel is the biggest evidence of how Revolutionary the French Revolution was. As historian Albert Soboul put it, “It created a system that was now dominated by the bourgeoisie and not anymore by the nobility.” The Revolution also removed the discrepancy of lingual codes, taxation and church powers that existed before the Revolution. This is highlighted by the fact that even after the Revolution was over and Napoleon had come to power the church powers remained curbed and France existed as a secular society. Moreover, dividing the administration into 83 parts broke the lingual and taxation barriers and this was continued by Napoleon through the use of the “Napoleonic Code.” All these factors already gave France a more united feel as separate kinds of systems were replaced by one common system. This gave Napoleon a platform to rule from and that is the reason we see that the French society was never the same again because the French Revolution removed exceptions.

The changes did not end here. Restrictions on internal trade were removed and this benefitted the entire society as trade flourished and economic growth was seen as people started indulging in jobs other than peasantry. Moreover, a uniform way of measuring distance, size and length was introduced in France. These new methods of measurement also survived the wrath of time and remarkably we use these units of measurements today. The Le Chepelier Law allowed work unions and also, a single legal system was introduced across France. After the French Revolution the various and differentiated taxes were removed and everyone was now only expected to pay state taxes, which ultimately left the peasantry a little more satisfied. Perhaps, the greatest internal change that occurred in France was the end of Feudalism in 1794. This was perhaps the most significant change that France saw during the time of the Revolution. As the English agronomist Morris Birkbeck put it on his visit to France, “ On my visit to France, I visited the town sides. The people were happy, had abundant to eat and most importantly shared a sense of personal public dignity.”

The French Revolution also had great impact in Europe and across the world at that point of time. Great democratic movements in Europe and the Atlantic were seen after the French Revolution and some instances include the revolutions seen in Poland in 1794 and Ireland in 1798. Apart from the global repercussions, it had special implications for the French colonies. France abolished slavery in 1794 and although Napoleon tried to reintroduce slavery through Code Noir, he ultimately backtracked. So there were huge changes in

Re

flec

tion

s

The Circ l e

Vive la Nation?Divyansh Goel reviews the French Revolution’s effect on the 18th century French Society

When the French Revolution began with the storming of the Bastille in 1789, no one could have imagined that it would lead to a revolution whose reverberations were felt across Europe. Today, over two centuries later, students across the globe study the Revolution as an example of changing systems in countries and that is what I feel is the biggest evidence of how Revolutionary the French Revolution was. As historian Albert Soboul put it, “It created a system that was now dominated by the bourgeoisie and not anymore by the nobility.”

12

13Autumn 2014

laws for the slaves who also started g a i n i n g r e c o g n i t i o n in France as citizens if they fulfilled certain criteria. Women too benefitted from the French Revolution. Fifty per cent of the French women had been peasants and the abolition

of feudalism was equally beneficial to both the men and women. The sans-jupons or the women political groups were as involved in the storming of the National Convention in 1795 as the sans-culottes and that shows us the extent of women participation in France after the Revolution. Finally, the inheritance law was passed during the French Revolution and this highlights the increase in power of women. However, the outlook cannot be all positive. The French Revolution was marred by a huge death toll:

somewhere in the region of 30,000. Was all the violence a justifiable price to pay for this Revolution? Probably not. By 1790, the French Revolution had achieved what it had aimed for. What followed after 1790 according to the Sutherland was horrific, as the French Revolution turned bloody as it turned into the Reign of Terror. Another negative aspect was that the society was still hierarchical since the working relationships had not changed. Besides, in large parts of France there still existed people who struggled to make ends meet.

However, in retrospect, the French Revolution fundamentally altered France. Leaders like Robespierre changed how France was run and this was evident even after France was done with the French Revolution. The French Revolution not only fundamentally altered France but it also changed the world. It led to movements across Europe and the reverberations are still felt today, over 200 years later. Could there be a better ringing endorsement of the French Revolution than that? In my belief, the French Revolution was an extraordinary movement, revolutionary to the core, some setbacks notwithstanding.

The Circle recalls Harshvardhan Singh’s Wednesday morning address on the poor living conditions of women and children

Every day, as we scurry towards the CDH wondering whether its Chicken Tikka for lunch or Pasta for dinner, just four air-hours away, scores of children scurry to safety. Safety from missiles, tank fire and shells. As the bearers here ring the bell for us to pour into the CDH, in that not-so-far away place,

sirens ring out and shrieking missiles pierce the skies. As we excitedly head out to take on the rest of the day, studying, playing or plain whiling away our time, people rush out of burning shelters with children bleeding to death in their mothers’ arm, children wailing and bewildered at the sight of their parents and siblings blown to bits in front of their eyes.

These are two very different worlds, very, very far away from each other. Whoever said the world is a small place must have been joking. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I am talking about one of the many contested lands that grab media attention for a few days and fade away, one page at a time, till they reach the last page and finally get erased from public memory. All the while the killing fields reverberate with wailing children: dying, wounded, orphaned. While we return to our states of blissful ignorance till the media finds some other killing field, more gory, more hellish and more senseless to catch our attention, if only fleetingly.

As we plan our community service programmmes, get our hours meticulously recorded and signed, do we have just a minute to reflect on suffering elsewhere in places that exist on this very planet? Even as I speak today, a tiny strip of land which houses innumerable refugees, fierce fighting is going on. Here, for decades now, vengeance and retribution have been raising a stink that mingles with the stench of stale blood and rotting flesh. Shrieking missiles, deafening blasts and cries for help rend the air; the only sounds that are anything close to human are the tear -choked voices of mourners putting their dead to rest. Yes this killing field is Gaza.

Since 8th of July this year, 1875 people have been killed and 9,563 have been injured and death and casualties toll continues to rise. Amidst the conflict between two factions of society, women and children are paying the price. You must be wondering why we sitting in this hall should care about what’s happening a handful of countries away? Then let me remind you that today we live in a world where a hypersonic ballistic missile launched from Jerusalem can wipe out New Delhi in less than half an hour. The world is no more a finely demarcated avenue. It has become a global village where people from all cultures, races and background should learn to live with each other in harmony rather than taking each others’ lives. Modern advancement in technology has exponentially grown the outreach of flow of information and global awareness even amongst nuclear communities. Therefore, it does not take much time for conflicts to infiltrate into sensitive areas. For instance, the J&K Police have recently shot dead a teenage boy in India-administered Kashmir, making it the first death outside Gaza in protests against Israel’s invasion of Gaza Strip. This will inevitably give rise to more bloodshed and unrest. It is therefore imperative that we try to understand the origins and nature of any conflict and try to seek solutions if we care enough to stop such continued violence across the world.

The pretext for any war or violence can be perceived in two ways: explicit short-term justifications, and implicit longer-term explanations. The recent escalation over Gaza can be viewed within this framework as follows:

Re

flec

tion

s

The Circ l e

A Tale of Two Worlds

Since 8th of July this year, 1875 people have been ki l led and 9,563 have been injured

and death and casualt ies tol l cont inues to r ise. Amidst the

conf l ict between two fact ions of society, women and

chi ldren are paying the pr ice. You must be wondering why

we s i tt ing in this hal l should care about what ’s happening a

handful of countr ies away?

14

15Autumn 2014

First, there are the immediate factors that are publically pronounced but strategically less significant. The usual examples cited: “We’re acting in self-defense”; “protecting our citizens”; “they’ve started it first”; “no other government would accept that rockets rain down on its people.” On the other hand, the long term but strategically significant goals include: improving one’s own strategic deterrence; weakening the enemy’s military bombast; breaking out of diplomatic isolation; and reaching a more conducive ceasefire of political arrangement. This specific conflict has been the bone of contention since the beginning of 18th century due to increasing Zionist settlement and has more ancient roots. Peacemaking processes such as UN Partition Plan have been under serious consideration even before India-Pakistan Partition. Such peace processes only made the situation worse by setting the trend of reviving the medieval strategy of outside powers dividing up other peoples’ lands, rather than adhering to the principle of “self-determination of peoples,” in which the people themselves create their own state and system of government. That such strategies are bound to fail, is evident in the fact that a couple of deaths a day in a “peaceful period” is considered normal. A temporary ceasefire is not an everlasting solution to the already complex situation. As of now both parties have even failed to conform to the 72-hour truce ceasefire.

So ceasefire negotiations carried out in air-conditioned rooms and arriving upon a so called mutual consensus is not the viable way because there will always be a

dominant force trying to work towards their own advantage and this will itself ask for more radical opposition from the other side. Besides some of my friends here might be wondering how our pondering on solutions here can solve international problems that have remained unsolved for almost 70 years. You must be wondering what the point of all this talking is. The point my friends, is to wake up from our slumber, shake off our complacence and put our heads together to look for solutions. Today, a thorough critique of all that is wrong in the world is still necessary, but it is no longer sufficient. Criticism that doesn’t also seek to identify the strategies and actual forces that can advance an alternative vision of what’s possible can have a conservatising, rather than radicalizing effect, because it gives the impression that there is little we can do to change the world.

But the lesson of social movements throughout history is that they must begin to organize themselves at a time when the rest of society dismisses them as “impractical.” In recent years, the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions strategy has begun to show that the goals of equality and Palestinian liberation once dismissed as “wishful thinking” are now gaining a wider hearing.

So, if we students, the future leaders of the world, fail to come up with any solution, we could at least hang our heads in shame and sorrow at all the precious lives lost and beautiful youth wasted.

Anvay Grover’s winning entry for the Historical Circle Essay Contest 2014

During a phone call with Obama that was reported by a German newspaper in March this year, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel said that Vladimir Putin is ‘in another world’ . The Crimean Crisis has most certainly re-drawn attention towards the volatile zone of Eastern Europe, with Putin

invading Ukraine to the Russians living in Ukraine, and because the democracy was not functioning properly leading to demonstrations in the cities like Donetsk. At least, those are the reasons that Putin has put forward, besides also saying that historically Crimea has always been a part of Russia. Putin believes that a historical wrong will be put right if Crimea is returned. However, many critics of Putin from all over the world have said this is all a pretext, and what Putin really wanted was to suppress the Western influence in Eastern Europe, and hence increase his own. Therefore, it becomes imperative to understand the legality and future implications of such actions. That is what this essay will try and do.

First, let us talk about the morality and legality of Putin’s actions in Ukraine. What is important to consider here is that this is not the first time Putin has taken a step like this. In 2008, Russia had invaded Georgia after

a long, drawn-out diplomatic conflict with Georgia. Daniel Fata, who was the deputy assistant secretary for defence for European and NATO Policy from 2005 to 2008 , says that at that time Putin was not punished by the international community. At that time, even though Putin had promised that the only step he was taking was protecting Russian citizens, he actually invaded Georgia. Fata said in an interview to The Washington Post, “He lied.” What then is to be made of Putin’s actions that his actions are moral? He still denies that he had any ulterior motives in annexing Crimea, saying that he has the responsibility of defending his ‘compatriots’, i.e. Russians, living in Ukraine. Putin’s record definitely goes against him in this case; the fact that he went against his word in 2008 leading to the Russo-Georgian War makes

one doubt the authenticity of Putin’s statements regarding the current crisis.

Moreover, the government in Ukraine had not asked for Russian intervention in order to help stop the demonstrations going on in the nation. The reports that the militants in Ukraine who were troubling the citizens, were Russians themselves make Putin’s case for a ‘moral intervention’ even weaker. Hence, his actions cannot be viewed as moral. All the signs point to the fact that Russia is merely advancing its own interest by trying to cripple the NATO influence in Eastern Europe. I will return to this later when I discuss the implications of Russian actions in Crimea.

The fact that the Ukrainian government did not ask for help also questions the legality of such an annexation. The only legal authority that allowed mobilisation of Russian troops was the Russian parliament, which might as well have been a decision made by one man- Vladimir Putin. Russia’ democracy has been questioned the world over; in 2011, the Democracy Index rated Russia as ‘authoritarian’, rather than ‘hybrid’ as it had previously done. That year, Russia stood 117th in the Index. Thus, the question that arises from this is whether this entire occupation of Crimea was because of one man’s decision.

Let us remember here that Putin has lied in the past to other nations, as in the above stated example of the Russo-Georgian War. The condemning of Russian actions worldwide shows that these actions are viewed as illegitimate, as they should be. Putin had no authority to intervene, was not asked to intervene by Ukraine and was not authorised to intervene by the United Nations. Above all, what Russia has violated is Ukraine’s sovereignty, which was granted to Ukraine because of its status as a nation. The United Nations regards non-interventionism by a nation into another nation’s internal matters a key principle . This principle is stated

His

tor

ica

l Cir

cle

Es

sa

y C

on

tes

t: Win

ne

r

The Circ l e

Legality, Morality and Future of Russia’s Bold Decisions

Talking about the f i re and the current events in Cr imea br ings me to the next sect ion of the essay, the impl icat ions of Russ ia’s aggress ive pol icy. Here, i t again becomes important to consider the events of the Russo-Georgian War in 2008, especial ly the react ion of the United States to this .

16

This power to attract , us ing f inance and by creat ing exclus iv ity, i s cal led soft power. Put in maybe envisages a return to the

older Russia; Russ ia I certainly projected as something exclus ive in neighbouring nat ions of Eastern Europe. Add to this the

dependence of France and Germany on Russia for oi l , France receives twenty-three per cent of i ts natural gas from Russia whi le Germany gets thirty-s ix per cent , and Russia regaining the status

i t had during the Cold War can be a def inite poss ibi l i ty.

17Autumn 2014

in the second article of the United Nations Charter, which Russia has ratified, showing yet again how Russia has broken international law. Barack Obama too said that such an aggressive policy is in “violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

One of the primary reasons that Russia gave for its aggressive policy is that Russians living in Crimea were under threat due to lack of a proper authority and protests in the country, with Putin referring to the Russian population as “brothers in arms” . But, what he is condoning here is that despite this population having strong familial and historical ties with Russia was composed primarily of Ukrainian citizens. Even if there was any danger to this population, Russian parliament, that is to say, Putin had no right to intervene as per UN Law. If every nation started using the same logic as Putin has to justify his aggressive policy, India should occupy Bangladesh if there were to be political troubles in Bangladesh, since historically that piece of land had always belonged to India or was at least part of the same sub-continent that was called India. Clearly, this logic is flawed. If anything, this also indicates that Russia has acted in its own interest. Hence, the fire that Russia has come under recently is justified.

Talking about the fire and the current events in

Crimea brings me to the next section of the essay, the implications of Russia’s aggressive policy. Here, it again becomes important to consider the events of the Russo-Georgian War in 2008, especially the reaction of the United States to this. Let us go back to what Daniel Fata, Pentagon officer said to the Washington Post. He says that during the war in Georgia, USA had three main aims. First, to deter Russia from advancing further, to reassure its allies and partners their security will not be compromised, and to roll Russian gains back . In 2008, USA had succeeded in their first two objectives, but not in their third. This is important to consider the USA because any involvement of Russia in a conflict is likely to have in world politics and the United States as well. These objectives are likely to be the USA’s objectives this time around too. In fact, they might have achieved their first aim. Putin confirmed that Russia was not going to occupy the other parts of Ukraine, a least for now .

But the USA’s immediate objectives are more to do with damage limitation, rather than on the long-term strategies of dealing with Russia’s aggressive expansionist policy. What must be clear now is that Putin is ready to expand his territory, and he is not going to pay heed to international law. So why is he following such a policy, and why does Crimea? The

answer probably lies in regaining the older Russian Federation, and in the manipulation of soft power. This is because Putin has been making all of Europe dependent on Russia gradually. This power to attract, using finance and by creating exclusivity, is called soft power. Putin maybe envisages a return to the older Russia; Russia I certainly projected as something exclusive in neighbouring nations of Eastern Europe. Add to this the dependence of France and Germany on Russia for oil, France receives twenty-three per cent of its natural gas from Russia while Germany gets thirty-six per cent , and Russia regaining the status it had during the Cold War can be a definite possibility. I am not saying that is what is going to happen, but that can be the future if such aggressive policy, coupled with the use of soft power, continues. Putin desires this because the cold war still hangs like a ghost on him. As John McCain said at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee annual conference this year, “The President of the United States believes that the Cold War is over; fine- it’s over. But Putin doesn’t believe it’s over.”

Unfortunately, such aggressive policies are likely to incite the United States to take action as well. Let us

remember that Ukraine was being seen as a potential member of the EU and maybe the NATO as well. This threatened Putin; he could not have a NATO member so close to his own borders. This is definitely a plausible explanation to the annexation of Crimea. But Putin’s actions will force the USA to respond in kind. Already it has turned into a fight over influence in Ukraine, with Ivo Daadler, Obama’s representative to the NATO saying, “Crimea is a big deal. It means a country can be invaded, and a big piece of it can be taken away with no price. But two, this isn’t just about Crimea. This is about who is ultimately in control of Ukraine.” The USA is also preparing a list of Russians related to the abuse of human rights under the new legislation of the Magnitsky Act.

Sanctions of American caviar, a delicacy that was sent to Russia, have already been imposed. This only reminds me of one thing: the Cold War. It was a time when every act of the United States was met by an equally strong, if not stronger, response from USSR and vice-versa. Such was the tension that it seeped into the space race as well. Here too we see the same; America’s act of increasingly influence in Eastern Europe was met by a Russian invasion, and now US is enacting new laws and putting sanctions. One can already see the possibility of ‘escalation’ between the US and Russia.

To conclude, from examining the moral and legal aspects of Russia’s invasion of Crimea, it is clear that the criticism that Russia has come under is justified. Moreover, such a policy raises some interesting yet dreadful possibilities for the future of world politics. As discussed, this could signal a return to the Cold War era. This is something that we could definitely do without. But Putin’s decisions have landed the entire world in an extremely sticky spot, and while the USA deserves its share of the blame, such actions by Russia are uncalled for. US Secretary of State John Kerry said it best in his indignation “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text.” Ironically, the same could apply for the USA’s previous actions; such is the state that world politics is in.

Bibliography

World Affairs Journal http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/beyond-crimea-what-vladimir-putin-really-wants

Global Posthttp://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/russia/140307/russia-ukraine-crimea-putin-motives

NY Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/world/europe/putin-flashing-disdain-defends-action-in-crimea.html?_r=1

New York Posthttp://nypost.com/2014/03/07/putin-insists-russias-actions-in-crimea-are-fully-legal/

NY Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/world/europe/no-easy-way-out.html

Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/05/what-russias-invasion-of-georgia-means-for-crimea/

The Telegraphhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10673235/Ukraine-crisis-Angry-Angela-Merkel-questions-whether-Putin-is-in-touch-with-reality.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2014/03/18/5-reasons-vladimir-putin-gave-for-annexing-crimea/

Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/02/us-ukraine-crisis-usa-kerry-idUSBREA210DG20140302

http://www.politico.com/gallery/2014/03/vladimir-putin-barack-obama-russia-ukraine-quotes/001665-023679.html

His

tor

ica

l Cir

cle

Es

sa

y C

on

tes

t: Win

ne

r

The Circ l e18

Autumn 2014

A Historical Circle Society Publication