Latest news with #AtlanticCharter
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
The last stand before the divide: Remembering the INA Trials and the Idea of India
Justice Sir Achhru Ram Sehgal of the Lahore High Court was no stranger to legal principle. But nothing in his long career had prepared him for this moment; he would have to choose between the judge's robe and the role of a father. His son, Captain Prem Sehgal, formerly of the Indian Army, now stood accused of treason for his role in joining and fighting for the Indian National Army (INA). In order to help coordinate a legal defence for his son, Sir Achhru Ram went to submit his resignation to the Chief Justice of Lahore, Sir Arthur Trevor Harries. But Harries, a man steeped in the British judicial tradition of fair play, simply looked at his colleague and said, 'Why don't you take leave instead?' With that gesture, Harries allowed the legal system to remain intact while showing rare human sympathy. That moment, brief and undocumented in legal texts, carried the moral clarity that often evades entire regimes. We in today's India, can only speculate at what an Indian Chief justice would do, if a brother judge offered his resignation to defend a child charged under the UAPA or other draconian legislation. Defence of national unity A defence committee had been formed by the Congress. It included many legends: Tej Bahadur Sapru, Asaf Ali, K.N. Katju, and a younger Nehruvian generation eager to lend voice to freedom. All appeared pro bono. But they still needed a place to work. It was Sir Achhru Ram who arranged for a bungalow in West Delhi — a legal war room where briefs were prepared, arguments debated, and strategy planned. The bungalow became a crucible of national lawyering, where personal egos gave way to the national cause. The INA Defence Committee knew there was only one man who could carry the moral and legal weight of the case: Bhulabhai Desai of Bombay. But Desai, gravely ill and advised complete rest, initially declined. That changed when Captain Lakshmi Sahgal, from a prison cell in Kohima, sent word: 'Only Bhulabhai must speak for us.' Even then, Desai hesitated. But when Sir Achhru Ram quietly told him that Prem Sehgal was his son, Desai accepted. In court, he stood for hours without notes, without rest, making the case that shook the Empire. His feet were swollen, his eyes puffy, there were days that he had to be carried to the courtroom on a chair.. His doctors despaired of his health, but Bhulabhai soldiered on. At one stage, he even told his team, 'If death comes to me, let it come; but I cannot allow the jeopardising of the lives of our precious patriots.' Desai's principal argument was audacious: the INA was not a rebel outfit but the legitimate Army of a Provisional Government of Free India. The provisional government had de facto control over territory in Northeast India and the Andamans. It had recognition from nine sovereign states. Its soldiers, therefore, were prisoners of war, not traitors. Desai invoked international law, the Atlantic Charter, and common sense. M.C. Setalvad, in his biography of Desai, records, 'His fundamental thesis was 'that a nation or part of a nation does reach a stage where it is entitled to wage war for its liberation'; that was well-accepted International Law. If he was right, acts done by persons acting as a part of the nation which was fighting for its liberation would be immune, by reason of International Law, from being offences under the municipal law of the country. He urged that the evidence led by the prosecution itself showed that, in the case before the Court, there was really a Provisional Government of Free India — a separate new Indian State which was fighting for the liberation of hundreds of thousands of Indian nationals.' Outside the Red Fort, slogans rang through the air: 'Lal Qile se uthi aawaz: Sehgal, Dhillon, Shahnawaz!' The names became household symbols of courage and 'a dramatic symbol of national unity'. Not only did the Congress express sympathy with them and organise their defence, the Muslim League also took the same attitude. A great wave of patriotic feeling and sympathy swept the whole country. Jawaharlal Nehru best described the national mood, later in a letter dated May 4, 1946 to the British Commander-in-Chief, Field Marshal Auchinleck: 'Within a few weeks the story of the I.N.A. had percolated to the remotest villages in India and everywhere there was admiration for them and apprehension as to their possible fate. No political organization, however strong and efficient, could have produced this enormous reaction in India. It was one of those rare things which just fit into the mood of the people, reflect as it were, and provide an opportunity for the public to give expression to that mood. The reason for this was obvious. Individuals were not known nor were many facts known to the pubic. The story as it developed seemed to the people just another aspect of India's struggle for independence and the individuals concerned became symbols in the public mind.' Then Jawaharlal Nehru donned his lawyer's robes again after 30 years and stood as one of the 17 lawyers for the defence. The people of Delhi and its surrounding areas, simply came and stood outside the Red Fort to express solidarity with those on trial. Many years later, Ch Bansilal a fellow MP, told Subhashini Ali, the daughter of Prem and Lakshmi Sehgal, how he, as a young lad, would take a few rotis packed by his mother, catch a bus from distant Bhiwani and come to Delhi to stand in solidarity. He was not the only one. At Sharif Manzil in Ballimaran, crowds would gather on its roof to look towards the Red Fort. Tea would be supplied by the household of the Hakim family which owned the building. Hakim Sahab had to send word one day that the people were welcome, but not in such a number as to cause the roof to fall down. This unity of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and women under the INA banner posed an existential threat to colonial rule. For a brief moment, a still undivided India saw what unity in diversity could look like. The judges still ruled guilty and sentenced Sehgal, Dhillon and Shahnawaz to transportation for life, but the verdict was political suicide for the Raj. Auchinleck wrote to the British government, 'while nothing that we do now will gain us positive goodwill, we can substantially reduce the present bitterness by calling off these trials and announcing a general amnesty... If it should be felt advisable in the light of the general political background to adopt the solution, which appears to be recommended practically unanimously by Indian opinion, of dropping the remaining trials, the only possible way to proceed would, in my opinion, be for His Majesty's Government, possibly in the name of the King himself, to state that, while they think the line taken in India by the Government is both logical and in accordance with humanity, they feel that they must recognise the wave of sentiment of this subject which has swept over India, and in view of the coming political talks, they have therefore decided on a general amnesty.' The advice given by Auchinleck was accepted. The sentences of transportation were remitted and never carried out. Desai retuned to Bombay in January 1946, but collapsed soon after and died in May 1946. His courtroom performance at the Red Fort remains one of the most heroic episodes in Indian legal history. A final flicker The INA trials were India's last great moment of national unity before the darkness of Direct Action Day and Partition descended. Within months, the harmony of Sehgal, Dhillon, and Shahnawaz gave way to communal carnage and conflagration that shattered India. But the trials remind us that the idea of India — inclusive, just, and fair — was not born out of compromise, but of courage. The judiciary, the Bar, and the people showed what it meant to rise above circumstance. It is that India we must remember every August 15. The Red Fort once hosted courtrooms. It now hosts the Prime Minister's speech. Perhaps this Independence Day, someone will remember that it once echoed not with just oratory, but with the cry: 'Lal Qile se uthi aawaz: Sehgal, Dhillon, Shahnawaz!' And maybe, just maybe, we'll listen. After freedom Justice Achhru Ram returned to the Bench and later confirmed the death sentences of Gandhiji's assassins. Post-retirement, he became India's first Custodian-General of Evacuee Property and later enjoyed a distinguished career as a senior advocate in the Supreme Court. Captain Prem Sehgal and Captain Lakshmi Sahgal married and settled in Kanpur. Lakshmi resumed her career as a gynaecologist and later joined the Communist Party. She ran for President of India as the Opposition's candidate. Their daughter, Subhashini Ali, followed her into public life and activism. Arthur Trevor Harries, ever the fair-minded judge, sought to become Chief Justice in the new dominion of Pakistan. But Jinnah did not approve of him. Harries quietly continued as Chief Justice of Calcutta and retired in 1952 and returned to England. General Shahnawaz Khan, though his family belonged to the area which became Pakistan, chose to stay on in India. He even served as a Minister in several Union Cabinets. He semi-adopted a girl from Hyderabad, Lateef Fatima, who married one of his aides from Peshawar Meer Taj Mohammed Khan. The son from that marriage would go on to embody a syncretic India on the silver screen. His name is Shahrukh Khan. Sanjay Hegde is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India.
Chicago Tribune
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Chicago Tribune
Today in History: Pakistan gains independence
Today is Thursday, Aug. 14, the 226th day of 2025. There are 139 days left in the year. Today in history: On Aug. 14, 1947, Pakistan gained independence from British rule. Also on this date: In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, ensuring income for elderly Americans and creating a federal unemployment insurance program. In 1936, in front of an estimated 20,000 spectators, Rainey Bethea was hanged in Owensboro, Kentucky in the last public execution in the United States. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter, which detailed the post-war goals of the two nations. In 1945, President Harry S. Truman announced that Imperial Japan had surrendered unconditionally, ending World War II. In 1994, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the terrorist known as 'Carlos the Jackal,' was captured by French agents in Sudan. In 1995, Shannon Faulkner officially became the first female cadet in the history of The Citadel, South Carolina's state military college. (However, Faulkner withdrew from the school less than a week later, citing the stress of her court fight, and her isolation among the male cadets.) In 1997, an unrepentant Timothy McVeigh was formally sentenced to death for the Oklahoma City bombing. (McVeigh was executed by lethal injection in 2001.) In 2009, Charles Manson follower Lynette 'Squeaky' Fromme, 60, convicted of trying to assassinate President Gerald Ford in 1975, was released from a Texas prison hospital after more than three decades behind bars. In 2016, Usain Bolt became the first athlete to win the 100m dash in three consecutive Olympics, taking gold at the Summer Games in Rio. In 2021, a 7.2-magnitude earthquake struck Haiti, turning thousands of structures into rubble; the quake left more than 2,200 people dead and injured more than 12,000 others. Today's Birthdays: Broadway lyricist Lee Adams ('Bye Bye Birdie') is 101. College Football Hall of Famer and NFL quarterback John Brodie is 90. Singer Dash Crofts is 85. Country singer Connie Smith is 84. Comedian-actor Steve Martin is 80. Film director Wim Wenders is 80. Singer-musician Larry Graham is 79. Actor Susan Saint James is 79. Author Danielle Steel is 78. 'Far Side' cartoonist Gary Larson is 75. Actor Carl Lumbly is 74. Olympic gold medal swimmer Debbie Meyer is 73. Actor Jackee Harry is 69. NASCAR Hall of Famer Rusty Wallace is 69. Actor Marcia Gay Harden is 66. Basketball Hall of Famer Earvin 'Magic' Johnson is 66. Singer Sarah Brightman is 65. Actor Susan Olsen (TV: 'The Brady Bunch') is 64. Actor Halle Berry is 59. Golfer Darren Clarke is 57. Actor Catherine Bell is 57. Actor Mila Kunis is 42. Actor Lamorne Morris is 42. Former NFL player Tim Tebow is 38. Actor Marsai Martin is 21.
Telegraph
28-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Starmer has just embarrassed Britain in front of the most powerful man in the world
The gold standard of interaction between British Prime Ministers and US presidents is not, alas, a historical one. It isn't Winston Churchill and FDR signing the Atlantic Charter. It isn't Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan clowning around on golf buggies, preaching the gospel of liberty and showing the Soviets what they were missing. It isn't even Tony Blair's craven poodling to George Bush, the bloody consequences of which remain a by-word of humiliation in both nations. Instead, it is the press conference given by Hugh Grant and Billy Bob Thornton in Love Actually. It is a superb film – Mrs Atkinson rewatches it every Christmas – and the moment at which Grant sticks it to his Yankee equivalent is a personal highlight. After the president has shown him up both politically and romantically, Grant realises he will take no more and stands up for Britain. 'We may be a small country', , he intones, 'but we're a great one too', before listing a set of national achievements up to and including David Beckham's feet. A 'friend who bullies us is no longer a friend'. Audience cheers. Alas, Keir Starmer's meeting with Donald Trump today was about as far from that ringing demonstration of national self-confidence as one could get. The two leaders met at Trump's Turnberry golf course in Scotland, where he is currently holding court like a visiting Oriental potentate. Even if things had previously been remarkably rosy between our puce-faced progressive PM and the resplendent tangerine leader of the free world, this meeting was an exercise in embarrassment. Trump chose to give Starmer unsolicited advice on how to beat Nigel Farage: cut taxes, clamp down on crime, and slash immigration. All common sense, but hardly what Labour backbenchers want to hear. The president also explained how American farmers have been driven to suicide by levies on farmland estates – hardly what the Prime Minister needed following his disastrous, cruel, and fiscally negligible assault on the nation's farmers. Trump also labelled Sadiq Khan a 'nasty person', and claimed the London Mayor was doing 'a terrible job' – rather awkward for Starmer, who pointed out that Khan is a friend of his.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
As wars rage in Gaza, Iran and Ukraine, is the UN struggling for relevance?
As Israeli airstrikes hit Iranian military installations earlier this month and tensions escalated across West Asia, the global spotlight turned—once again—towards the United Nations. But the Security Council chamber remained quiet. No resolution was passed. No unified action was taken. Questions are being raised again about the relevance of such a global body. From New York to Gaza to Kyiv, the UN has mostly watched, not led. The United Nations turns 80 this October. But the anniversary arrives not with celebration, but with hesitation. What was once founded as humanity's grandest experiment in global cooperation now stands weakened—almost paralysed—in a world that has grown far more tumultuous than it was in 1945. The UN, created from the ashes of the Second World War and charged with preserving peace, upholding human rights, and confronting global challenges, finds itself unable to prevent bloodshed in Gaza or stop a grinding war in Ukraine. Its legitimacy is questioned, its finances are under pressure, and its structure looks increasingly outdated. At this point, the question that is on everybody's mind is no longer about reform but about the global body's relevance. Second World War and the birth of the UN The United Nations was officially born on October 24, 1945, when representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco to sign a founding charter. It was a direct response to the failure of the League of Nations and a conscious attempt to design a stronger international body that could prevent the recurrence of catastrophic wars. Drawing legitimacy from wartime declarations like the Atlantic Charter and the Declaration of St James's Palace, the UN laid out four founding purposes: to maintain international peace and security, to promote friendly relations among nations, to foster international cooperation in solving economic, social and humanitarian issues, and to serve as a platform where nations could harmonise their actions. The institutional framework rested on six key organs: the General Assembly, Security Council, International Court of Justice, Economic and Social Council, Secretariat, and the now-suspended Trusteeship Council, along with an expanding network of specialised agencies such as the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Fund, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. That grand vision, however, is increasingly running into the hard limits of geopolitics and institutional design. What is undermining the already limited authority of the UN? One of the most fundamental issues undermining the UN is its finances. The organisation is funded through a hybrid system of assessed and voluntary contributions. The assessed contributions are mandatory payments made by each member state, calculated according to the country's capacity to pay. These cover the regular budget and peacekeeping costs. In contrast, voluntary contributions fund most of the UN's operational agencies and are often earmarked for specific programs, giving donors disproportionate influence over priorities. In 2022, the United States remained the largest single contributor, with a total of $18.1 billion in assessed and voluntary payments combined, covering roughly 22 per cent of the core UN budget and 28 per cent of peacekeeping expenses. China, now the second-largest contributor, accounted for 20 per cent of the regular budget, while Japan followed at just under 7 per cent. Public trust in the UN is eroding as surveys conducted across continents shows. Large majorities express doubts about the organisation's ability to resolve crises or represent global interests. (Chart| Edelman Trust Barometer, Pew Research Center) But the trend since has been one of growing unease. In 2024, the United States failed to make the UN's 'Honor Roll', a designation for countries that pay their dues in full and on time. The consequences of such a signal go beyond numbers: it suggests a waning commitment from the very member that historically provided the institutional backbone. Manjeev Singh Puri, former Indian ambassador to the European Union and to Nepal, notes, 'Voluntary contributions are useful in emergencies but are politically contingent. Assessed contributions are more stable but are often held hostage to domestic politics. That's the dilemma: a UN caught between moral imperatives and donor priorities, between multilateralism and the politics of power.' What structural flaws ail the UN? Beyond finances, the UN suffers from a structural flaw that has proven nearly impossible to fix: the inability to enforce its own decisions. It has no standing army or independent enforcement mechanism. It cannot compel nations to abide by its rulings. Its resolutions carry the weight of international consensus, but not the muscle to implement them. The Security Council, arguably the most powerful arm of the UN, is able to impose sanctions and authorise military intervention under Chapter VII of the Charter. But that authority is frequently neutralised by the veto powers of its five permanent members: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. 'This is how the UN was born,' says Puri. 'It was never meant to be a level playing field. Global governance has always been a power game of nations. The five permanent members were the victors of the Second World War and they institutionalised their dominance.' Even the International Court of Justice, tasked with adjudicating legal disputes between states, is hamstrung by the principle of consent. States must agree to its jurisdiction, and even then, compliance with its rulings is often selective or delayed. 'The UN looks helpless, but even superpowers require legitimacy,' adds Puri. 'Why else would the US insist on a cabinet-rank ambassador to the UN or rely on the IAEA to inspect nuclear programs? They need the fig leaf of multilateral legitimacy.' Which wars has the UN stopped and where has it failed? Over the decades, the UN has launched 72 peacekeeping missions, with 12 still operational as of 2024. These missions have had a mixed record. They helped stabilise post-conflict societies in Namibia, Cambodia, Mozambique, El Salvador, and Sierra Leone. But in Rwanda, nearly 800,000 people were killed while UN troops watched. In Srebrenica, a UN-declared 'safe zone' became a site of massacre in July 1995. 'In Timor-Leste, the UN played a real role. In the Balkans too, but only when backed by superpowers,' notes Puri. 'India is the largest cumulative contributor to UN peacekeeping. We've seen up close that peacekeeping works except when major powers are involved.' UN's diminishing influence in today's wars Today, the United Nations is staring at the most complex geopolitical landscape since the Cold War. The war in Ukraine has split the Security Council. The Gaza conflict has exposed the organisation's inability to either mediate or stop violence. The United States under Donald Trump has threatened to further cut funds, while China has used its growing financial clout to shape institutional narratives and development priorities. Europe's role has weakened amid financial strain and political fragmentation. Meanwhile, the rise of alternative power blocs such as Brics, the African Union, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has shifted attention away from New York. Still, Ambassador Puri warns against overestimating these "mini-laterals". 'These coalitions of the willing have always existed. But they don't replace the legitimacy that only a multilateral forum like the UN provides. Brics, for example, hasn't shown capacity to handle peacekeeping. Imagine if Brics had to deal with Iran being bombed—a member it only inducted last year.' 'Mini-laterals are useful. But they can't confer legitimacy. That's the UN's unique role, and we can't discard that,' he says. Reform or retreat - what is needed? Public trust in the UN is eroding. In surveys conducted across continents, large majorities express doubts about the organisation's ability to resolve crises or represent global interests. In many parts of the world, the UN is seen as either an extension of Western power or a passive observer incapable of decisive action. Reform has long been discussed but rarely realised. Proposals to restructure the Security Council, eliminate the veto, or expand permanent membership have stalled. Financial reforms have struggled to gain traction. For Puri, the future lies not in abandoning the UN, but in playing the long game. 'This is where legitimacy comes from. If you want a seat at the high table or even close to it you need to stay engaged. That's why India must remain active in multilateral forums. That's where recognition happens,' he says. At this juncture, the world is not just debating its reform. It is questioning whether the architecture of 1945 can survive in a world of climate crises, cyber warfare, disinformation, and rising authoritarianism. 'The relevance of the UN or multilateralism is that much, as much as the power game of nations allows. In my understanding, what is happening now, 1992 was a specific game-changing period, a sweet spot, if I may say so, when many things happened. What's happening now is fundamentally a challenge to the G7 hegemony. And the challenge is coming from China. That's the main challenge,' notes Puri. But if the UN is broken, so is the world order it symbolises and fixing one may require reimagining both.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Phil Craig tracks Allied powers' duplicitous endgame in Asian colonies
Operation Semut typified the Allied betrayal of Atlantic Charter ideals. It's a pity Mr Craig overlooks similar betrayals of the Nagas and others who served the British in the India-Burma theatre Listen to This Article 1945: The Reckoning: War, Empire and the Struggle for a New World by Phil Craig Published by Hachette 380 pages ₹899 Recent popular histories of World War II have focused on the war in Asia, where the post-war political trajectories of former colonial empires have been no less consequential than those in Europe. Those campaigns are an uncomfortable reminder that, whatever the evils of Nazi Germany, World War II was essentially a colonial contest, and the empires relied heavily on colonial troops to fight their good fight.
