World History | Independent Indian: Work & Life of Professor Subroto Roy

Pakistan’s & India’s Illusions of Power (Psychosis vs Vanity)

March 3, 2015 — drsubrotoroy

Preface: This paper culminates my line of argument since our University of Hawaii Pakistan book in the mid 1980s, through my work on the Kashmir problem in the 1990s, published in The Statesman in 2005/2006 etc and in my undelivered Lahore lectures of 2011. https://independentindian.com/2011/10/13/my-seventy-one-notes-at-facebook-etc-on-kashmir-pakistan-and-of-course-india-listed-thanks-to-jd/ The paper has faced resistance from both Indian and Pakistani newspapers for obvious reasons. I would like to especially thank Beena Sarwar and Gita Sahgal in recent weeks for helpful comments. (And Frank Hahn, immediately saw when I mentioned it to him in 2004 that my solution was Pareto-improving…etc)

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recently reported an Urdu book Taqat ka Sarab (‘Illusion of Power) published in Pakistan in December 2014 edited by the physicist Dr AH Nayyar. The book “aims to educate Pakistanis about the attitudes of their leadership toward nuclear weapons”. It says “Pakistan’s people have come to believe that the successful acquisition of nuclear capability means that their nation’s security is forever ensured”. Pakistani politicians, scientists and officials who created these weapons have used them to justify a “right to unlimited authority for ruling over Pakistan”. “Consequently, free discussion and honest opinion about nuclear weapons have been nearly prohibited, under the premise that any such talk poses a basic threat to national security.”

Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri’s order to Indian forces to cross the Punjab border towards Lahore in 1965 in response to President Ayub Khan’s attack in Kashmir genuinely shocked Pakistan’s political and military establishment at the time. It may have continued to do so ever since. Everyone in Lahore for those few days in September 1965 was ready to battle the invasion of infidel India considered imminent when Indian forces reached the Ichogil canal.

“Hindu-dominated India wants to occupy us and destroy the Pakistan Principle for which our martyrs died” has been the constantly heard Pakistani refrain. After 1965 it did not take long for Pakistan, via the ignominy of the 1971 surrender in Dhaka, to acquire by any means the technology to develop its own nuclear weapons, even under the noses of its American friends.

Now Pakistan is said to have some 110 nuclear warheads, mostly in a disassembled state but with a few on fighter-jets in hidden air-bases in Balochistan (made by the USA decades ago) always at the ready, waiting for that Indian attack that will never come. It may all have been psychotic delusion.

India has never initiated hostilities against Pakistan. Not once. Not in 1947, 1965, 1971, 1999, 2008.

In 1971 India undoubtedly supported the Mukti Bahini, and I myself, as a schoolboy distributing supplies to refugees from East Pakistan/Bangladesh, was personally witness to Indian military involvement as of August 1971. Even so, hostilities between the countries formally began on 3 December 1971 with the surprise Pakistani air attack on Indian bases in Punjab and UP.

Though India has never attacked first, the myth continues in Pakistan that wicked Hindu-dominated India wants to attack and suppress their country. What is closer to the truth is that the New Delhi elite is barely able to run New Delhi, and the last place on earth they would want to run is Pakistan.

On our Indian side, the Indian military has been allowed a budgetary carte blanche for decades, especially with foreign exchange resources. (Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on 28 February 2015 has allocated some 2,467 billion INR to the military.)

Despite our vast spending, a band of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba terrorists tyrannized Mumbai for days on end while we seem perpetually without strategy against the People’s Republic of China’s recurrent provocations.

The two world powers with traditional interests in India — Russia and Britain — place their long-term agents in Delhi’s high politics and places with impunity, getting done all they need to in particular cases. The USA, France, Israel and others follow suit – all mainly to do with selling India very expensive military weapons, aircraft etc. that they have in excess inventory. India now has the notorious distinction of being the world’s largest weapons’ importer.

Yet we are hardly a trading or monetary superpower. We have large current account and budgetary deficits, and we are essentially buying whatever weapons, aircraft, shopping malls etc. that we do on foreign credit that we may or may not have. (Pakistan does the same.)

India’s illusions of power have to do with boasting a very large military that can take on the imperialists. We do not realize the New Imperialism that may control Delhi is not of a Clive or Dupleix but of clandestine or open foreign lobbyists and agents who get done what their masters need to have done on a case-by-case basis. The result is a corrosion of Indian power, sovereignty, and credit, little by little, and may lead to a collapse or grave crisis in the future. Even the BJP/RSS Government of Mr Modi (let aside the Sonia-Manmohan Congress and official Communists) may not realize how it all came about.

The way forward for both Pakistan and India is to seek to break the impasse between ourselves.

And there is no doubt the root problem remains Kashmir, and the hysteria and terrorism it has spawned over the years. A resolution of these fundamental issues calls for some hard scholarship, political vision and guts. The vapid gassing of stray bureaucrats, journalists, diplomats or generals has gotten everyone precisely nowhere thus far.

I have argued at length in previous publications that the de facto boundary that was the Ceasefire Line in 1949, and was later renamed the Line of Control in 1972, is indeed also the de jure boundary between India and Pakistan.

Jammu & Kashmir came into existence as a legal entity on 16 March 1846 under the Dogra Gulab Singh, friend of the British during the Sikh wars, and a protégé earlier of the great Sikh Ranjit Singh.

Dogra J&K ended its existence as an entity recognized in international law on 15 August 1947. (Hari Singh, the fourth and last Dogra ruler where Gulab Singh had been the first, desperately sought Clement Attlee’s recognition but did not get it.) Thanks to British legal confusion, negligence or cunning, the territory of what had been known as Dogra Jammu & Kashmir became sovereign-less or ownerless territory in international law on that date, with the creation of the new Pakistan and new India.

The new Pakistan as of August-September 1947 immediately started to plan to take the territory by force, and sought to implement that plan as of 22 October. Had the Pakistani attackers not stopped to indulge in the Rape of Baramullah, they would have taken Srinagar airport by 26 October, and there would have been no Indian defence of the territory possible. As matters turned out, the ownerless territory of what had been Dogra Jammu & Kashmir came to be divided by “military decision” (to use the UN’s term) between the new Pakistan and new India. Kargil and Drass were taken by Pakistan and then lost. Skardu was held by India and later lost. Neither military ever since is going to permit the other to take an inch from itself either by war or by diplomacy.

The de facto boundary over ownerless territory divided by military force is the de jure boundary in the Roman law that underlies all international law. Once both sides recognize that properly, we may proceed to the next stages.

On the Pakistani side, recognizing Indian sovereignty over Indian territory in what had been J&K requires stamping out the LeT etc – perhaps not so much by force as by explaining to them that the fight is over, permanently. There is no jihad against India now or ever. Indian territory is not dar-ul-harb but dar-ul-aman: where more than one hundred million Muslim citizens of India freely and peacefully practice their faith.

On the Indian side, if, say, SAS Geelani and friends, under conditions of individual privacy, security and full information, wish to renounce Indian nationality, become stateless, and apply for some other nationality (like Pakistani or Afghan or Iranian) while continuing to live lawfully and law-abidingly on Indian territory, do we have a problem with that? We can’t really. The expatriate children of the Indian elite have renounced Indian nationality in America, Britain, Australia etc upon far weaker principles or beliefs. India has many foreign nationals living permanently on its territory peacefully and law-abidingly (Sir Mark Tully perhaps the most notable) and can add a few more.

The road would be gradually opened for an exchange of consulates between India and Pakistan in Srinagar and Muzaffarabad (leave aside vice-consulates or tourist offices in Jammu, Gilgit, Skardu, Leh). And the remaining Hurriyat, as new Pakistani nationals living in India, can visit the Pakistani consul in Srinagar for tea every day if they wish, to discuss Pakistani matters like Afridi’s cricket or Bilawal’s politics or whatever.

The militaries and potentially powerful economies on both sides could then proceed towards real strength and cooperation, having dispelled their current illusions of power.

Viz https://independentindian.com/2011/10/13/my-seventy-one-notes-at-facebook-etc-on-kashmir-pakistan-and-of-course-india-listed-thanks-to-jd/

Posted in Academic economics, Academic research, Afghanistan, Balochistan, Bangladesh, Britain in India, British foreign policy, British imperialism, Government of India, Government of Pakistan, India's airforce, India's Diplomacy, India's Foreign Policy, India's nomenclatura, India-Pakistan peace process, India-Pakistan wars, International diplomacy, International Law, International politics, Iran, Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu & Kashmir in international law, Kargil war 1999, Laddakh, Law, Laws of war, Laws of war applied to international terrorists, Narendra Modi, New Delhi, Pakistan, Pakistan in international law, Pakistan's civil war, Pakistan's diplomacy, Pakistan's history, Pakistan's nuclear weapons, Pakistan's politics, Pakistan's terrorist masterminds, Pakistan's terrorist training institutes, Pakistani expansionism, War, World History. 3 Comments »

Pakistan’s Point of View (Or Points of View) on Kashmir: My As Yet Undelivered Lahore Lecture–Part I

November 22, 2011 — drsubrotoroy

Preface

27 April 2015 from Twitter: “My Pakistani hosts never managed to go thru w their 2010/11 invitation I speak in Lahore on Kashmir. After ‪#‎SabeenMahmud‬ s murder, I decline”

October 2015 from Twitter: I have started a quite thorough critique under #kasuri etc at Twitter of the extremely peculiar free publicity given in Delhi and Mumbai power circles to the dressed up (and false) ISI/Hurriyat narrative of KM Kasuri; the Musharraf “demilitarisation/borderless” idea that Mr Kasuri promotes is originally mine from our Pakistan book in America in the 1980s, which I brought to the attention of both sides (and the USA) in Washington in 1993 but which I myself later rejected as naive and ignorant after the Pakistani aggression in Kargil in 1999, especially the murder of Lt Kalia and his platoon as POWs. https://independentindian.com/2006/12/15/what-to-tell-musharraf-peace-is-impossible-without-non-aggressive-pakistani-intentions/ https://independentindian.com/2008/11/15/of-a-new-new-delhi-myth-and-the-success-of-the-university-of-hawaii-1986-1992-pakistan-project/

see too https://independentindian.com/2011/10/13/my-seventy-one-notes-at-facebook-etc-on-kashmir-pakistan-and-of-course-india-listed-thanks-to-jd/

I have also now made clear how and why my Lahore lecture (confirmed by the Pakistani envoy to Delhi personally phoning me of his own accord at home on 3 March 2011, followed the next day by the Indian Foreign Secretary phoning to give me an appointment to brief her about my talk upon my return) came to be sabotaged by two Pakistanis and two Indian politicians associated with them. (Both of the Indian politicians had bad karma catch up immediately afterwards!)

Original Preface 22 November 2011: Exactly a year ago, in late October-November 2010, I received a very kind invitation from the Lahore Oxford and Cambridge Society to speak there on this subject. Mid March 2011 was a tentative date for this lecture from which the text below is dated. The lecture has yet to take place for various reasons but as there is demand for its content, I am releasing the part which was due to be released in any case to my Pakistani hosts ahead of time — after all, it would have been presumptuous of me to seek to speak in Lahore on Pakistan’s viewpoint on Kashmir, hence I instead planned to release my understanding of that point of view ahead of time and open it to the criticism of my hosts. The structure of the remainder of the talk may be surmised too from the Contents. The text and argument are mine entirely, the subject of more than 25 years of research and reflection, and are under consideration of publication as a book by Continuum of London and New York. If you would like to comment, please feel free to do so, if you would like to refer to it in an online publication, please give this link, if you would like to refer to it in a paper-publication, please email me. Like other material at my site, it is open to the Fair Use rule of normal scholarship.

On the Alternative Theories of Pakistan and India about Jammu & Kashmir (And the One and Only Way These May Be Peacefully Reconciled): An Exercise in Economics, Politics, Moral Philosophy & Jurisprudence

by

Subroto (Suby) Roy

Lecture to the Oxford and Cambridge Society of Lahore

March 14, 2011 (tentative)

“What is the use of studying philosophy if all that does for you is to enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc., & if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life?” Wittgenstein, letter to Malcolm, 1944

“India is the greatest Muslim country in the world.”

Sir Muhammad Iqbal, 1930, Presidential Address to the Muslim League, Allahabad

“Where be these enemies?… See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate,… all are punish’d.” Shakespeare

Dr Roy’s published works include Philosophy of Economics: On the Scope of Reason in Economic Inquiry (London & New York: Routledge, 1989, 1991); Pricing, Planning & Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1984); and, edited with WE James, Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s (Hawaii MS 1989, Sage 1992) & Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s (Hawaii MS 1989, Sage 1992, OUP Karachi 1993); and, edited with John Clarke, Margaret Thatcher’s Revolution: How it Happened and What it Meant (London & New York: Continuum 2005). He graduated in 1976 with a first from the London School of Economics in mathematical economics, and received the PhD in economics at Cambridge in 1982 under Professor Frank Hahn for the thesis “On liberty & economic growth: preface to a philosophy for India”. In the United States for 16 years he was privileged to count as friends Professors James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, TW Schultz, Max Black and Sidney Alexander. From September 18 1990 he was an adviser to Rajiv Gandhi and contributed to the origins of India’s 1991 economic reform. He blogs at http://www.independentindian.com.

Part I

Introduction
Pakistan’s Point of View (or Points of View)

(a) 1930 Sir Muhammad Iqbal

(b) 1933-1948 Chaudhury Rahmat Ali

(c) 1937-1941 Sir Sikander Hayat Khan

(d) 1937-1947 Quad-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah

(e) 1940s et seq Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi

(f) 1947-1950 Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, 1966 President Ayub Khan, 2005 Govt of Pakistan, 2007 President Musharraf, 2008 FM Qureshi, 2011 Kashmir Day

Part II

India’s Point of View: British Negligence/Indifference during the Transfer of Power, A Case of Misgovernance in the Chaotic Aftermath of World War II

(a) Rhetoric: Whose Pakistan? Which Kashmir?

(b) Law: (i) Liaquat-Zafrullah-Abdullah-Nehru United in Error Over the Second Treaty of Amritsar! Dogra J&K subsists Mar 16 1846-Oct 22 1947. Aggression, Anarchy, Annexations: The LOC as De Facto Boundary by Military Decision Since Jan 1 1949. (ii) Legal Error & Confusion Generated by 12 May 1946 Memorandum. (iii) War: Dogra J&K attacked by Pakistan, defended by India: Invasion, Mutiny, Secession of “Azad Kashmir” & Gilgit, Rape of Baramulla, Siege of Skardu.

Politics: What is to be Done? Towards Truths, Normalisation, Peace in the 21^st Century

The Present Situation is Abnormal & Intolerable. There May Be One (and Only One) Peacable Solution that is Feasible: Revealing Individual Choices Privately with Full Information & Security: Indian “Green Cards”/PIO-OCI status for Hurriyat et al: A Choice of Nationality (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran). Of Flags and Consulates in Srinagar & Gilgit etc: De Jure Recognition of the Boundary, Diplomatic Normalisation, Economic & Military Cooperation.

Appendices:

(a) History of Jammu & Kashmir until the Dogra Native State

(b) Pakistan’s Allies (including A Brief History of Gilgit)

(c) India’s Muslim Voices

(d) Pakistan’s Muslim Voices: An Excerpt from the Munir Report

Part I

1. Introduction

For a solution to Jammu & Kashmir to be universally acceptable it must be seen by all as being lawful and just. Political opinion across the subcontinent — in Pakistan, in India, among all people and parties in J&K, those loyal to India, those loyal to Pakistan, and any others — will have to agree that, all things considered, such is the right course of action for everyone today in the 21st Century, which means too that the solution must be consistent with the principal known facts of history as well as account reasonably for all moral considerations.

I claim to have found such a solution, indeed I shall even say it is the only such solution (in terms of theoretical economics, it is the unique solution) and plan with your permission to describe its main outlines at this distinguished gathering. I have not invented it overnight but it is something developed over a quarter century, milestones along the way being the books emerging from the University of Hawaii “perestroika” projects for India and Pakistan that I and the late WE James led 25 years ago, and a lecture I gave at Washington’s Heritage Foundation in June 1998, as well as sets of newspaper articles published between 2005 and 2008, one in Dawn of Karachi and others in The Statesman of New Delhi and Kolkata.

Before I start, allow me for a moment to remind just how complex and intractable the problem we face has been, and, therefore, quite how large my ambition is in claiming today to be able to resolve it.

“Kashmir is in the Supreme National Interest of Pakistan”, says Pakistan.

“Kashmir is an Integral Part of India”, says India.

“Kashmir is an Integral Part of Pakistan”, says Pakistan.

“Kashmir is in the Supreme National Interest of India”, says India.

And so it goes, in what over the decades has been all too often a Dialogue of the Deaf. How may such squarely opposed positions be reconciled without draining public resources even further through wasteful weaponry and confrontation of standing armies, or, what is worse, using these weapons and armies in war, plunging the subcontinent into an abyss of chaos and destruction for generations to come? How is it possible?

I shall suggest a road can be found only when we realize Pakistan, India and J&K each have been and are going to remain integral to one another — in their histories, their geographies, their economies and their societies. The only place they may need to differ, where we shall want them to differ, is their politics and political systems. We should not underestimate how much mutual hatred and mutual fear has arisen naturally on all sides over the decades as a result of bloodshed and suffering all around, and the fact must also be accounted for that people simply may not be in a calm-enough emotional state to want to be part of processes seeking resolution; at the same time, it bears to be remembered that although Pakistan and India have been at war more than once and war is always a very serious and awful thing, they have never actually declared war against the other nor have they ever broken diplomatic relations – in fact in some ways it has always seemed like some very long and protracted fraternal Civil War between us where we think we know one another so well and yet come to be surprised more by one another’s virtues than by one another’s vices.

Secondly, with any seemingly intractable problem, dialogue can stall or be aborted due to normal human failings of impatience or lack of good will or lack of good humour or lack of a scientific attitude towards finding facts, or plain mutual miscomprehension of one another’s points of view through ignorance or laziness or negligence. In case of Pakistan and India over J&K, there has been the further critical complication that we of this generation did not cause this problem — it has been something inherited by us from not even our fathers but our grandfathers! It is two generations old. Each side must respect the words and deeds of its forebears but also may have to frankly examine in a scientific spirit where errors of fact or judgment may have occurred back then. The antagonistic positions have changed only slightly over two generations, and one reason dialogue stalls or gets aborted today is because positions have become frozen for more than half a century and merely get repeated endlessly. On top of such frozen positions have been piled pile upon pile of further vast mortal complications: the 1965 War, the 1971 secession of East Pakistan, the 1999 Kargil War, the 2008 Mumbai massacres. Only cacophony results if we talk about everything at once, leaving the status quo of a dangerous expensive confrontation to continue.

I propose instead to focus as specifically and precisely as possible on how Jammu & Kashmir became a problem at all during those crucial decades alongside the processes of Indian Independence, World War II, the Pakistan Movement and creation of Pakistan, accompanied by the traumas and bloodshed of Partition.

Having addressed that — and it is only fair to forewarn this eminent Lahore audience that such a survey of words, deeds and events between the 1930s and 1950s tends to emerge in India’s favour — I propose to “fast-forward” to current times, where certain new facts on the ground appear much more adverse to India, and finally seek to ask what can and ought to be done, all things considered, today in the circumstances of the 21st Century. There are four central facts, let me for now call them Fact A, Fact B, Fact C and Fact D, which have to be accepted by both countries in good faith and a scientific spirit. Facts A and B are historical in nature; Pakistan has refused to accept them. Facts C and D are contemporary in nature; official political India and much of the Indian media too often have appeared wilfully blind to them. The moment all four facts come to be accepted by all, the way forward becomes clear. We have inherited this grave mortal problem which has so badly affected the ordinary people of J&K in the most terrible and unacceptable manner, but if we fail to understand and resolve it, our children and grandchildren will surely fail even worse — we may even leave them to cope with the waste and destruction of further needless war or confrontation, indeed with the end of the subcontinent as we have received and known it in our time.

2. Pakistan’s Point of View (Or Points of View)

1930 Sir Muhammad Iqbal

This audience will need no explanation why I start with Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938), the poetic and spiritual genius who in the 20^th Century inspired the notion of a Muslim polity in NorthWestern India, whose seminal 1930 presidential speech to the Muslim League in Allahabad lay the foundation stone of the new country that was yet to be. He did not live to see Pakistan’s creation yet what may be called the “Pakistan Principle” was captured in his words:

“I would like to see the Punjab, Northwest Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North West Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims at least of Northwest India… India is the greatest Muslim country in the world. The life of Islam as a cultural force in this living country very largely depends on its centralization in a specified territory”.

He did not see such a consolidated Muslim state being theocratic and certainly not one filled with bigotry or “Hate-Hindu” campaigns:

“A community which is inspired by feelings of ill-will towards other communities is low and ignoble. I entertain the highest respect for the customs, laws, religious and social institutions of other communities… Yet I love the communal group which is the source of my life and my behaviour… Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim states will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such states…. I therefore demand the formation of a consolidated Muslim state in the best interests of India and Islam. For India it means security and peace resulting from an internal balance of power, for Islam an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian Imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilise its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and the spirit of modern times.”[1]

Though Kashmiri himself, in fact a founding member of the “All-India Jammu & Kashmir Muslim Conference of Lahore and Simla”, and a hero and role model for the young Sheikh Abdullah (1905-1982), Allama Iqbal was explicitly silent about J&K being part of the new political entity he had come to imagine. I do not say he would not have wished it to be had he lived longer; what I am saying is that his original vision of the consolidated Muslim state which constitutes Pakistan today (after a Partitioned Punjab) did not include Jammu & Kashmir. Rather, it was focused on the politics of British India and did not mention the politics of Kashmir or any other of the so-called “Princely States” or “Native States” of “Indian India” who constituted some 1/3^rd of the land mass and 1/4^th of the population of the subcontinent. Twenty years ago I called this “The Paradox of Kashmir”, namely, that prior to 1947 J&K hardly seemed to appear in any discussion at all for a century, yet it has consumed almost all discussion and resources ever since.

Secondly, this audience will see better than I can the significance of Dr Iqbal’s saying the Muslim political state of his conception needed

“an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian Imperialism was forced to give it”

and instead seek to

“mobilise its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and the spirit of modern times”.

Dr Iqbal’s Pakistan Principle appears here the polar opposite of Pakistan’s 18^th & 19^th Century pre-history represented by Shah Waliullah (1703-1762)[2] saying

“We are an Arab people whose fathers have fallen in exile in the country of Hindustan, and Arabic genealogy and Arabic language are our pride”

or Sayyid Ahmed Barelwi (1786-1831) saying

“We must repudiate all those Indian, Persian and Roman customs which are contrary to the Prophet’s teaching”.[3]

Some 25 years after the Allahabad address, the Munir Report in 1954 echoed Dr Iqbal’s thought when it observed about medieval military conquests

“It is this brilliant achievement of the Arabian nomads …that makes the Musalman of today live in the past and yearn for the return of the glory that was Islam… Little does he understand that the forces which are pitted against him are entirely different from those against which early Islam had to fight… Nothing but a bold reorientation of Islam to separate the vital from the lifeless can preserve it as a World Idea and convert the Musalman into a citizen of the present and the future world from the archaic incongruity that he is today…” [4]

1933-1947 Chaudhury Rahmat Ali

Dr Iqbal’s young follower, the radical Cambridge pamphleteer Chaudhury Rahmat Ali (1895-1951) drew a picture not of Muslim tolerance and coexistence with Hindus in a peaceful India but of aggression towards Hindus and domination by Muslims over the subcontinent and Asia itself. Rahmat Ali had been inspired by Dr Iqbal’s call for a Muslim state in Northwest India but found it vague and was disappointed Iqbal had not pressed it at the Third Round Table Conference. In 1933, reportedly on the upper floor of a London omnibus, he invented for the then-imagined political entity the name “PAKSTAN”, P for his native Punjab, A for Afghania, K for Kashmir, S for Sind, and STAN for Balochistan. He sought a meeting with Mr Jinnah in London — “Jinnah disliked Rahmat Ali’s ideas and avoided meeting him”[5] but did meet him. There is a thesis yet to be written on how Europe’s inter-War ideologies affected political thinking on the subcontinent. Rahmat Ali’s vituperative views about Hindus were akin to others about Jews (and Muslims too) at the time, all models or counterfoils for one another in the fringes of Nazism. He referred to the Indian nationalist movement as a “British-Banya alliance”, declined to admit India had ever existed and personally renamed the subcontinent “Dinia” and the seas around it the “Pakian Sea”, the “Osmanian Sea” etc. He urged Sikhs to rise up in a “Sikhistan” and urged all non-Hindus to rise up in war against Hindus. Given the obscurity of his life before his arrival at Cambridge’s Emmanuel College, what experiences may have led him to such views are not known.

All this was anathema to Mr Jinnah, the secular constitutionalist embarrassed by a reactionary Muslim imperialism in that rapidly modernising era that was the middle of the 20^th Century. When Rahmat Ali pressed the ‘Pakstan’ acronym, Mr Jinnah said Bengal was not in it and Muslim minority regions were absent. At this Chaudhury-Sahib produced a general scheme of Muslim domination all over the subcontinent: there would be “Pakstan” in the northwest including Kashmir, Delhi and Agra; “Bangistan” in Bengal; “Osmanistan” in Hyderabad; “Siddiquistan” in Bundelhand and Malwa; “Faruqistan” in Bihar and Orissa; “Haideristan” in UP; “Muinistan” in Rajasthan; “Maplistan” in Kerala; even “Safiistan” in “Western Ceylon” and “Nasaristan” in “Eastern Ceylon”, etc. In 1934 he published and widely circulated such a diagram among Muslims in Britain at the time. He was not invited to the Lahore Resolution which did not refer to Pakistan though came to be called the Pakistan Resolution. When he landed in the new Pakistan, he was apparently arrested and deported back and was never granted a Pakistan passport. From England, he turned his wrath upon the new government, condemning Mr Jinnah as treacherous and newly re-interpreting his acronym to refer to Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Iran, Sindh, Tukharistan (sic), Afghanistan, and Balochistan. The word “pak” coincidentally meant pure, so he began to speak of Muslims as “the Pak” i.e. “the pure” people, and of how the national destiny of the new Pakistan was to liberate “Pak” people everywhere, including the new India, and create a “Pak Commonwealth of Nations” stretching from Arabia to the Indies. The map he now drew placed the word “Punjab” over J&K, and saw an Asia dominated by this “Pak” empire. Shunned by officialdom of the new Pakistan, Chaudhury-Sahib was a tragic figure who died in poverty and obscurity during an influenza epidemic in 1951; the Master of Emmanuel College paid for his funeral and was apparently later reimbursed for this by the Government of Pakistan. In recent years he has undergone a restoration, and his grave at Cambridge has become a site of pilgrimage for ideologues, while his diagrams and writings have been reprinted in Pakistan’s newspapers as recently as February 2005.

1937-1941 Sir Sikander Hayat Khan

Chaudhary Rahmat Ali’s harshest critic at the time was the eminent statesman and Premier of Punjab Sir Sikander Hayat Khan (1892-1942), partner of the 1937 Sikander-Jinnah Pact, and an author of the Lahore Resolution. His statement of 11 March 1941 in the Punjab Legislative Assembly Debates is a classic:

“No Pakistan scheme was passed at Lahore… As for Pakistan schemes, Maulana Jamal-ud-Din’s is the earliest…Then there is the scheme which is attributed to the late Allama Iqbal of revered memory. He, however, never formulated any definite scheme but his writings and poems have given some people ground to think that Allama Iqbal desired the establishment of some sort of Pakistan. But it is not difficult to explode this theory and to prove conclusively that his conception of Islamic solidarity and universal brotherhood is not in conflict with Indian patriotism and is in fact quite different from the ideology now sought to be attributed to him by some enthusiasts… Then there is Chaudhuri Rahmat Ali’s scheme (laughter)…it was widely circulated in this country and… it was also given wide publicity at the time in a section of the British press. But there is another scheme…it was published in one of the British journals, I think Round Table, and was conceived by an Englishman…..the word Pakistan was not used at the League meeting and this term was not applied to (the League’s Lahore) resolution by anybody until the Hindu press had a brain-wave and dubbed it Pakistan…. The ignorant masses have now adopted the slogan provided by the short-sighted bigotry of the Hindu and Sikh press…they overlooked the fact that the word Pakistan might have an appeal – a strong appeal – for the Muslim masses. It is a catching phrase and it has caught popular imagination and has thus made confusion worse confounded…. So far as we in the Punjab are concerned, let me assure you that we will not countenance or accept any proposal that does not secure freedom for all (cheers). We do not desire that Muslims should domineer here, just as we do not want the Hindus to domineer where Muslims are in a minority. Now would we allow anybody or section to thwart us because Muslims happen to be in a majority in this province. We do not ask for freedom that there may be a Muslim Raj here and Hindu Raj elsewhere. If that is what Pakistan means I will have nothing to do with it. If Pakistan means unalloyed Muslim Raj in the Punjab then I will have nothing to do with it (hear, hear)…. If you want real freedom for the Punjab, that is to say a Punjab in which every community will have its due share in the economic and administrative fields as partners in a common concern, then that Punjab will not be Pakistan but just Punjab, land of the five rivers; Punjab is Punjab and will always remain Punjab whatever anybody may say (cheers). This, then, briefly is the future which I visualize for my province and for my country under any new constitution.

Intervention (Malik Barkat Ali): The Lahore resolution says the same thing.

Premier: Exactly; then why misinterpret it and try to mislead the masses?…”

1937-1947 Quad-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah

During the Third Round Table Conference, Dr Iqbal persuaded Mr Jinnah (1876-1948) to return to India; Mr Jinnah, from being settled again in his London law practice, did so in 1934. But following the 1935 Govt of India Act, the Muslim League failed badly when British India held its first elections in 1937 not only in Bengal and UP but in Punjab (one seat), NWFP and Sind.

World War II, like World War I a couple of brief decades earlier, then changed the political landscape completely. Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939 and Britain and France declared war on Germany on 3 September. The next day, India’s British Viceroy (Linlithgow) granted Mr Jinnah the political parity with Congress that he had sought.[6] Professor Francis Robinson suggests that until 4 September 1939 the British

“had had little time for Jinnah and his League. The Government’s declaration of war on Germany on 3 September, however, transformed the situation. A large part of the army was Muslim, much of the war effort was likely to rest on the two Muslim majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal. The following day, the Viceroy invited Jinnah for talks on an equal footing with Gandhi…. As the Congress began to demand immediate independence, the Viceroy took to reassuring Jinnah that Muslim interests would be safeguarded in any constitutional change. Within a few months, he was urging the League to declare a constructive policy for the future, which was of course presented in the Lahore Resolution[7]…. In their August 1940 offer, the British confirmed for the benefit of Muslims that power would not be transferred against the will of any significant element in Indian life. And much the same confirmation was given in the Cripps offer nearly two years later…. Throughout the years 1940 to 1945, the British made no attempt to tease out the contradictions between the League’s two-nation theory, which asserted that Hindus and Muslims came from two different civilisations and therefore were two different nations, and the Lahore Resolution, which demanded that ‘Independent States’ should be constituted from the Muslim majority provinces of the NE and NW, thereby suggesting that Indian Muslims formed not just one nation but two. When in 1944 the governors of Punjab and Bengal urged such a move on the Viceroy, Wavell ignored them, pressing ahead instead with his own plan for an all-India conference at Simla. The result was to confirm, as never before in the eyes of leading Muslims in the majority provinces, the standing of Jinnah and the League. Thus, because the British found it convenient to take the League seriously, everyone had to as well—Congressmen, Unionists, Bengalis, and so on…”[8]

Mr Jinnah was himself amazed by the new British attitude towards him:

“(S)uddenly there was a change in the attitude towards me. I was treated on the same basis as Mr Gandhi. I was wonderstruck why all of a sudden I was promoted and given a place side by side with Mr Gandhi.”

Britain, threatened for its survival, faced an obdurate Indian leadership and even British socialists sympathetic to Indian aspirations grew cold (Gandhi dismissing the 1942 Cripps offer as a “post-dated cheque on a failing bank”). Official Britain’s loyalties had been consistently with those who had been loyal to them, and it was unsurprising there would be a tilt to empower Mr Jinnah soon making credible the real possibility of Pakistan.[9] By 1946, Britain was exhausted, pre-occupied with rationing, Berlin, refugee resettlement and countless other post-War problems — Britain had not been beaten in war but British imperialism was finished because of the War. Muslim opinion in British India had changed decisively in the League’s favour. But the subcontinent’s political processes were drastically spinning out of everyone’s control towards anarchy and blood-letting. Implementing a lofty vision of a cultured progressive consolidated Muslim state in India’s NorthWest descended into “Direct Action” with urban mobs shouting Larke lenge Pakistan; Marke lenge Pakistan; Khun se lenge Pakistan; Dena hoga Pakistan.[10]

We shall return to Mr Jinnah’s view on the legal position of the “Native Princes” of “Indian India” during this critical time, specifically J&K; here it is essential before proceeding only to record his own vision for the new Pakistan as recorded by the profoundly judicious report of Justice Munir and Justice Kayani a mere half dozen years later:

“Before the Partition, the first public picture of Pakistan that the Quaid-i-Azam gave to the world was in the course of an interview in New Delhi with Mr. Doon Campbell, Reuter’s Correspondent. The Quaid-i-Azam said that the new State would be a modern democratic State, with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed. When Pakistan formally appeared on the map, the Quaid-i-Azam in his memorable speech of 11^th August 1947 to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, while stating the principle on which the new State was to be founded, said:—‘All the same, in this division it was impossible to avoid the question of minorities being in one Dominion or the other. Now that was unavoidable. There is no other solution. Now what shall we do? Now, if we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and specially of the masses and the poor. If you will work in co-operation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. If you change your past and work together in a spirit that every one of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges and obligations., there will be no end to the progress you will make. “I cannot emphasise it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities—the Hindu community and the Muslim community— because even as regards Muslims you have Pathana, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on—will vanish. Indeed if you ask me this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain its freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free peoples long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time but for this (Applause). Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed— that has nothing to do with the business of the State (Hear, hear). As you know, history shows that in England conditions sometime ago were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State (Loud applause). The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the Government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist: what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen, of Great Britain and they are all members of the nation. “Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State’. The Quaid-i-Azam was the founder of Pakistan and the occasion on which he thus spoke was the first landmark in the history of Pakistan. The speech was intended both for his own people including non-Muslims and the world, and its object was to define as clearly as possible the ideal to the attainment of which the new State was to devote all its energies. There are repeated references in this speech to the bitterness of the past and an appeal to forget and change the past and to bury the hatchet. The future subject of the State is to be a citizen with equal rights, privileges and obligations, irrespective of colour, caste, creed or community. The word ‘nation’ is used more than once and religion is stated to have nothing to do with the business of the State and to be merely a matter of personal faith for the individual.”

1940s et seq Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, Amir Jama’at-i-Islami

The eminent theologian Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi (1903-1979), founder of the Jama’at-i-Islami, had been opposed to the Pakistan Principle but once Pakistan was created he became the most eminent votary of an Islamic State, declaring:

“That the sovereignty in Pakistan belongs to God Almighty alone and that the Government of Pakistan shall administer the country as His agent”.

In such a view, Islam becomes

“the very antithesis of secular Western democracy. The philosophical foundation of Western democracy is the sovereignty of the people. Lawmaking is their prerogative and legislation must correspond to the mood and temper of their opinion… Islam… altogether repudiates the philosophy of popular sovereignty and rears its polity on the foundations of the sovereignty of God and the viceregency (Khilafat) of man.”

Maulana Maudoodi was asked by Justice Munir and Justice Kayani:

“Q.—Is a country on the border of dar-ul-Islam always qua an Islamic State in the position of dar-ul-harb ?

A.—No. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the Islamic State will be potentially at war with the non-Muslim neighbouring country. The non-Muslim country acquires the status of dar-ul-harb only after the Islamic State declares a formal war against it”.

“Q.—Is there a law of war in Islam?

A.—Yes.

Q.—Does it differ fundamentally from the modern International Law of war?

A.—These two systems are based on a fundamental difference.

Q.—What rights have non-Muslims who are taken prisoners of war in a jihad?

A.—The Islamic law on the point is that if the country of which these prisoners are nationals pays ransom, they will be released. An exchange of prisoners is also permitted. If neither of these alternatives is possible, the prisoners will be converted into slaves for ever. If any such person makes an offer to pay his ransom out of his own earnings, he will be permitted to collect the money necessary for the fidya (ransom).

Q.—Are you of the view that unless a Government assumes the form of an Islamic Government, any war declared by it is not a jihad?

A.—No. A war may be declared to be a jihad if it is declared by a national Government of Muslims in the legitimate interests of the State. I never expressed the opinion attributed to me in Ex. D. E. 12:— (translation)‘The question remains whether, even if the Government of Pakistan, in its present form and structure, terminates her treaties with the Indian Union and declares war against her, this war would fall under the definition of jihad? The opinion expressed by him in this behalf is quite correct. Until such time as the Government becomes Islamic by adopting the Islamic form of Government, to call any of its wars a jihad would be tantamount to describing the enlistment and fighting of a non-Muslim on the side of the Azad Kashmir forces jihad and his death martyrdom. What the Maulana means is that, in the presence of treaties, it is against Shari’at, if the Government or its people participate in such a war. If the Government terminates the treaties and declares war, even then the war started by Government would not be termed jihad unless the Government becomes Islamic’.

….

“Q.—If we have this form of Islamic Government in Pakistan, will you permit Hindus to base their Constitution on the basis of their own religion?

A—Certainly. I should have no objection even if the Muslims of India are treated in that form of Government as shudras and malishes and Manu’s laws are applied to them, depriving them of all share in the Government and the rights of a citizen. In fact such a state of affairs already exists in India.”

.…

“Q.—What will be the duty of the Muslims in India in case of war between India and Pakistan?

A.—Their duty is obvious, and that is not to fight against Pakistan or to do anything injurious to the safety of Pakistan.”

1947-1950 PM Liaquat Ali Khan, 1966 Gen Ayub Khan, 2005 Govt of Pakistan et seq

In contrast to Maulana Maudoodi saying Islam was “the very antithesis of secular Western democracy”, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan (1895-1951)[11] during his first official visit in 1950 to North America was to say the new Pakistan, because it was Muslim, held Asia’s greatest democratic potential:

“At present there is no democracy in Asia which is more free and more unified than Pakistan; none so free from moral doubts and from strains between the various sections of the people.”

He told his audiences Pakistan was created because Hindus were people wedded to caste-differences where Pakistanis as Muslims had an egalitarian and democratic disposition:

“The Hindus, for example, believe in the caste system according to which some human beings are born superior to others and cannot have any social relations with those in the lower castes or with those who are not Hindus. They cannot marry them or eat with them or even touch them without being polluted. The Muslims abhor the caste system, as they are a democratic people and believe in the equality of men and equal opportunities for all, do not consider a priesthood necessary, and have economic laws and institutions which recognize the right of private ownership and yet are designed to promote the distribution of wealth and to put healthy checks on vast unearned accumulations… so the Hindus and the Muslims decided to part and divide British India into two independent sovereign states… Our demand for a country of our own had, as you see, a strong democratic urge behind it. The emergence of Pakistan itself was therefore the triumph of a democratic idea. It enabled at one stroke a democratic nation of eighty million people to find a place of its own in Asia, where now they can worship God in freedom and pursue their own way of life uninhibited by the domination or the influence of ways and beliefs that are alien or antagonistic to their genius.” [12]

President Ayub Khan would state in similar vein on 18 November 1966 at London’s Royal Institute of International Affairs:

“the root of the problem was the conflicting ideologies of India and Pakistan. Muslim Pakistan believed in common brotherhood and giving people equal opportunity. India and Hinduism are based on inequality and on colour and race. Their basic concept is the caste system… Hindus and Muslims could never live under one Government, although they might live side by side.”

Regarding J&K, Liaquat Ali Khan on November 4 1947 broadcast from here in Lahore that the 1846 Treaty of Amritsar was “infamous” in having caused an “immoral and illegal” ownership of Jammu & Kashmir. He, along with Mr Jinnah, had called Sheikh Abdullah a “goonda” and “hoodlum” and “Quisling” of India, and on February 4 1948 Pakistan formally challenged the sovereignty of the Dogra dynasty in the world system of nations. In 1950 during his North American visit though, the Prime Minister allowed that J&K was a “princely state” but said

“culturally, economically, geographically and strategically, Kashmir – 80 per cent of whose peoples like the majority of the people in Pakistan are Muslims – is in fact an integral part of Pakistan”;

“(the) bulk of the population (are) under Indian military occupation”.

Pakistan’s official self-image, portrayal of India, and position on J&K may have not changed greatly since her founding Prime Minister’s statements. For example, in June 2005 the website of the Government of Pakistan’s Permanent Mission at the UN stated:

“Q: How did Hindu Raja (sic) become the ruler of Muslim majority Kashmir?

A: Historically speaking Kashmir had been ruled by the Muslims from the 14th Century onwards. The Muslim rule continued till early 19th Century when the ruler of Punjab conquered Kashmir and gave Jammu to a Dogra Gulab Singh who purchased Kashmir from the British in 1846 for a sum of 7.5 million rupees.”

“India’s forcible occupation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 is the main cause of the dispute. India claims to have ‘signed’ a controversial document, the Instrument of Accession, on 26 October 1947 with the Maharaja of Kashmir, in which the Maharaja obtained India’s military help against popular insurgency. The people of Kashmir and Pakistan do not accept the Indian claim. There are doubts about the very existence of the Instrument of Accession. The United Nations also does not consider Indian claim as legally valid: it recognises Kashmir as a disputed territory. Except India, the entire world community recognises Kashmir as a disputed territory. The fact is that all the principles on the basis of which the Indian subcontinent was partitioned by the British in 1947 justify Kashmir becoming a part of Pakistan: the State had majority Muslim population, and it not only enjoyed geographical proximity with Pakistan but also had essential economic linkages with the territories constituting Pakistan.”

India, a country dominated by the hated-Hindus, has forcibly denied Srinagar Valley’s Muslim majority over the years the freedom to become part of Muslim Pakistan – I stand here to be corrected but, in a nutshell, such has been and remains Pakistan’s official view and projection of the Kashmir problem over more than sixty years.[13]

Part II

India’s Point of View: British Negligence/Indifference during the Transfer of Power, A Case of Misgovernance in the Chaotic Aftermath of World War II

(a) Rhetoric: Whose Pakistan? Which Kashmir?

(b) Law: (i) Liaquat-Zafrullah-Abdullah-Nehru United in Error Over the Second Treaty of Amritsar! Dogra J&K subsists Mar 16 1846-Oct 22 1947. Aggression, Anarchy, Annexations: The LOC as De Facto Boundary by Military Decision Since Jan 1 1949. (ii) Legal Error & Confusion Generated by 12 May 1946 Memorandum. (iii) War: Dogra J&K attacked by Pakistan, defended by India: Invasion, Mutiny, Secession of “Azad Kashmir” & Gilgit, Rape of Baramulla, Siege of Skardu.

Politics: What is to be Done? Towards Truths, Normalisation, Peace in the 21^st Century

The Present Situation is Abnormal & Intolerable. There May Be One (and Only One) Peacable Solution that is Feasible: Revealing Individual Choices Privately with Full Information & Security: Indian “Green Cards”/PIO-OCI status for Hurriyat et al: A Choice of Nationality (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran). Of Flags and Consulates in Srinagar & Gilgit etc: De Jure Recognition of the Boundary, Diplomatic Normalisation, Economic & Military Cooperation.

Appendices:

(a) History of Jammu & Kashmir until the Dogra Native State

(b) Pakistan’s Allies (including A Brief History of Gilgit)

(c) India’s Muslim Voices

(d) Pakistan’s Muslim Voices: An Excerpt from the Munir Report

[1] EIJ Rosenthal, Islam in the Modern National State, 1965, pp.196-197.

[2] A contemporary of Mohammad Ibn Abdal Wahhab of Nejd.

[3] Francis Robinson in WE James & Subroto Roy, Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s, 1993, p. 36. Indeed Barelwi had created a proto-Pakistan in NorthWest India one hundred years before the Pakistan Movement. “In the later 1820s the movement became militant, regarding jihad as one of the basic tenets of faith. Possibly encouraged by the British, with whom the movement did not feel powerful enough to come to grips at the outset, it chose as the venue of jihad the NW frontier of the subcontinent, where it was directed against the Sikhs. Barelwi temporarily succeeded in carving out a small theocratic principality which collapsed owing to the friction between his Pathan and North Indian followers; and he was finally defeated and slain by the Sikhs in 1831″ (Aziz Ahmed, in AL Basham (ed) A Cultural History of India 1976, p. 384). Professor Robinson answered a query of mine in an email of 8 August 2005: “the fullest description of this is in Mohiuddin Ahmad, Saiyid Ahmad Shahid (Lucknow, 1975), although practically everyone who deals with the period covers it in some way. Barelwi was the Amir al-Muminin of a jihadi community which based itself north of Peshawar and for a time controlled Peshawar. He called his fellowship the Tariqa-yi Muhammadiya. Barelwi corresponded with local rulers about him. After his death at the battle of Balakot, it survived in the region, at Sittana I think, down to World War One.”

[4] Rosenthal, ibid., p 235

[5] Germans

[6] Events remote from India’s history and geography, namely, the rise of Hitler and the Second World War, had contributed between 1937 and 1947 to the change of fortunes of the Muslim League and hence of all the people of the subcontinent. The British had long discovered that mutual antipathy between Muslims and Hindus could be utilised in fashioning their rule; specifically that organisation and mobilisation of Muslim communal opinion was a useful counterweight to any pan-Indian nationalism emerging to compete with British authority. As early as 1874, long before Allan Octavian Hume ICS conceived the Indian National Congress, John Strachey ICS observed “The existence side by side of these (Hindu and Muslim) hostile creeds is one of the strong points in our political position in India. The better classes of Mohammedans are a source of strength to us and not of weakness. They constitute a comparatively small but an energetic minority of the population whose political interests are identical with ours.” By 1906, when a deputation of Muslims headed by the Aga Khan first approached the British pleading for communal representation, Minto the Viceroy replied: “I am as firmly convinced as I believe you to be that any electoral representation in India would be doomed to mischievous failure which aimed at granting a personal enfranchisement, regardless of the beliefs and traditions of the communities composing the population of this Continent.” Minto’s wife wrote in her diary the effect was “nothing less than the pulling back of sixty two millions of (Muslims) from joining the ranks of the seditious opposition.” (The true significance of Maulana Azad may have been that he, precisely at the same time, did indeed feel within himself the nationalist’s desire for freedom strongly enough to want to join the ranks of that seditious opposition.)

[7] “That geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute Independent States in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign”.

[8] Robinson ibid, pp. 43-44.

[9] In the “Indian India” of the Native Princes, Hari Singh and others who sent troops to fight as part of British armies (and who were nominal members of Churchill’s War Cabinet) would have their vanities flattered, while Sheikh Abdullah’s rebellion against Dogra rule would be ignored. See seq. And in British India, Mr Jinnah the conservative Anglophile and his elitist Muslim League would be backed, while the radicalised masses of the Gandhi-Bose-Nehru Congress suppressed as a nuisance.

[10] An anthology about Lahore reports memories of a murderous mob arriving at a wealthy man’s home to be placated with words like “They are Parsis not Hindus, no need to kill them…”

[11] An exact contemporary of Chaudhury Rahmat Ali.

[12] Pakistan, Harvard University Press, 1950.

[13] It is not far from this to a certain body of sentiments frequently found, for example, as recently as February 5 2011: “To observe the Kashmir Solidarity Day, various programs, rallies and protests will be held on Saturday (today) across the city to support the people of Kashmir in their struggle against the Indian occupation of their land. Various religious, political, social and other organizations have arranged different programs to highlight the atrocities of Indian occupant army in held Jammu and Kashmir where about 800,000 Indian soldiers have been committing atrocities against innocent civilians; killing, wounding and maiming tens of thousands of people; raping thousands of women and setting houses, shops and crops on fire to break the Kashmiris’ will to fight for their freedom…Jamat-ud-Dawah…leaders warned that a ‘jihad’ would be launched if Kashmir was not liberated through civil agitation…the JuD leaders said first the former President, Pervez Musharraf, and now the current dispensation were extending the olive branch to New Delhi despite the atrocities on the Kashmiri people….the Pakistani nation would (never compromise on the issue of Kashmir and) would continue to provide political, moral and diplomatic support to the Kashmiri people.”

Posted in Academic economics, Academic research, Asia and the West, Britain, Britain in India, Britain's Parliament, Britain's monarchy, British foreign policy, British history, British imperialism, British military doctrine and traditions, Economic Theory, FCR Robinson, Gilgit and Baltistan, Governance, Government of India, Government of Pakistan, India in international law, India's Constitution, India's Diplomacy, India's Foreign Policy, India's History, India's independence, India's Muslims, India's Nationalism, India's Rule of Law, India's secularism, India-Pakistan cooperation against terrorism, India-Pakistan peace process, Indian subcontinent, International Law, Iqbal, Iran, Islam, Islamic State, Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu & Kashmir in international law, Jurisprudence, Just war, Karakorum Pass, Kargil war 1999, Pakistan in international law, Pakistan's civil war, Pakistan's origins, Pakistan's constitutional politics, Pakistan's history, Pakistan's military, Pakistan's nuclear weapons, Pakistan's politics, Pakistan's Rule of Law, Pakistan's terrorist masterminds, Pakistani expansionism, Rational decisions, Reason, Regional cooperation, Secular governance, Secularism in practice, Srinagar, Statesmanship, Welfare Economics, World History. 1 Comment »

Annals of Diplomacy & International Relations

November 29, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

From Facebook:

Subroto Roy finds it odd in diplomatic law and protocol that two American Presidents in succession have said respectively to the same Indian Prime Minister “You’re a good man” and a person of “honesty and integrity”.

Subroto Roy thinks Asia (from Israel-Palestine to Japan & Indonesia) needs its own Metternich and Congress of Vienna, but won’t get it and hence may remain many many decades behind Europe in political development. (And why Asia won’t get what Europe did may be because Europe did what it did.)

Subroto Roy agrees with Professor Juan Cole’s summary position: “India and Russia want an Obama ‘surge’ in Afghanistan because they are afraid that if Muslim extremists take over the country, that development could threaten their own security. China is more or less bankrolling the Afghanistan War…In contrast, Pakistan does not seem… eager for the further foreign troops, in part because it wants to project power and influence into Afghanistan itself”. But he would add Russia, China, India and Iran too are free-riders from the military standpoint (though India has built power-stations, roads etc for civilian economic development), while Pakistan remains schizophrenic as to whether it wishes to define itself by the lights of Iqbal and Jinnah or by the lunacy of Rahmat Ali.

On the zenith and nadir of US-India relations

November 25, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

From Facebook:

Subroto Roy thinks the zenith of US-India relations (besides FDR pressing Churchill on Indian independence) was the landing of US military transports in Ladakh during the Communist Chinese aggression of 1962 thanks to JK Galbraith & JFK. (The nadir was the Nixon-Kissinger support for Pakistani tyranny against Bangladesh in 1971.)

And then there was Alexander Dubček in the Prague Spring of 1968

November 10, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

From Facebook:

Subroto Roy recalls that long before Gorbachev and Walesa, there was in the Prague Spring a man named Dubček…. this is a photograph published in his “Hope Dies Last”
ManandtankWenceslas

Posted in Alexander Dubček, Cold War, Communists, Comparative Government, Czechoslovakia, Democracy, Freedom, Good and Evil, Lech Walesa, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, Poland, Prague Spring of 1968, Tyranny, USSR, World History. Leave a Comment »

On the Existence of a Unique and Stable Solution to the Jammu & Kashmir Problem that is Lawful, Just and Economically Efficient

October 15, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

P Chidambaram may recall our brief interaction at the residence of the late Shri Rajiv Gandhi in September-October 1990, and also my visit in July 1995 when he was a member of Narasimha Rao’s Government.

I am delighted to read in today’s paper that he believes a “unique solution” exists to the grave mortal problem of Jammu & Kashmir. Almost four years ago, I published in The Statesman my discovery of the existence of precisely such a unique solution in the three-part article “Solving Kashmir”.

This came to be followed by “Law, Justice and J&K”, “History of Jammu & Kashmir”, “Pakistan’s Allies”, “What to tell Musharraf” and a few others. The purpose of this open letter is to describe that solution which provides, I believe, the only just and lawful path available to the resolution of what has been known universally as the Kashmir problem.

Very briefly, it involves recognizing that the question of lawful territorial sovereignty in J&K is logically distinct from the question of the choice of nationality by individual inhabitants. The solution requires

(a) acknowledging that the original legal entity in the world system of nations known as Jammu & Kashmir arose on March 16 1846 and ceased to exist on or about October 22 1947; that the military contest that commenced on the latter date has in fact resulted, given all particular circumstances of history, in the lawful and just outcome in international law;

(b) offering all who may be Indian nationals or stateless and who presently live under Article 370, a formal choice of nationality between the Republics of India, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan: citizen-by-citizen, without fear or favour, under conditions of full information, individual privacy and security; any persons who voluntarily choose to renounce Indian nationality in such private individual decisions would be nevertheless granted lawful permanent residence in the Indian Republic and J&K in particular.

In other words, the dismemberment of the original J&K State and annexation of its territories by the entities known today as the Republic of Pakistan and Republic of India that occurred since October 22 1947, as represented first by the 1949 Ceasefire Line and then by the 1972 Line of Control, is indeed the just and lawful outcome prevailing in respect of the question of territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction. The remaining democratic question has to do with free individual choice of nationality by inhabitants, under conditions of full information and privacy, citizen-by-citizen, with the grant of permanent residency rights by the Indian Republic to persons under its jurisdiction in J&K who might wish to choose, for deeply personal individual reasons, not to remain Indian nationals but become Afghan, Iranian or Pakistani nationals instead (or remain stateless). Pakistan has said frequently its sole concern has been the freedom of Muslims of J&K under Indian rule, and any such genuine concern shall have been thereby fully met by India. Indeed if Pakistan agreed to act similarly this entire complex mortal problem of decades shall have begun to be resolved most appropriately. Pakistan and India are both wracked by corruption, poverty and bad governance, and would be able to mutually draw down military forces pit against one another everywhere, so as to begin to repair the grave damage to their fiscal health caused over decades by the deleterious draining away of vast public resources.

The full reasoning underlying this, which I believe to be the only lawful, just, efficient and stable solution that exists, is thoroughly explained in the following six articles. The first five, “Solving Kashmir”, “Law, Justice & J&K”, “History of J&K”, and “Pakistan’s Allies”, “What to Tell Musharraf” were published in The Statesman in 2005-2006 and are marked ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR and FIVE below, and are also available elsewhere here. The sixth “An Indian Reply to President Zardari”, marked SIX, was published for the first time here following the Mumbai massacres.

I believe careful reflection upon this entire body of reasoning may lead all reasonable men and women to a practically unanimous consensus about this as the appropriate course of action; if such a consensus happened to arise, the implementation of the solution shall only be a matter of (relatively) uncomplicated procedural detail.

Subroto Roy
October 15 2009

“ONE
SOLVING KASHMIR: ON AN APPLICATION OF REASON by Subroto Roy First published in three parts in The Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, December 1,2,3 2005, http://www.thestatesman.net

(This article has its origins in a paper “Towards an Economic Solution for Kashmir” which circulated in Washington DC in 1992-1995, including at the Indian and Pakistani embassies and the Carnegie Endowment, and was given as an invited lecture at the Heritage Foundation on June 23 1998. It should be read along with other articles also republished here, especially “History of J&K”, “Law, Justice and J&K” , “Understanding Pakistan”, “Pakistan’s Allies” and “What to Tell Musharraf”. The Washington paper and lecture itself originated from my ideas in the Introduction to Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy, edited by WE James and myself in the University of Hawaii project on Pakistan 1986-1992.)

I. Give Indian `Green Cards’ to the Hurriyat et al

India, being a liberal democracy in its constitutional law, cannot do in Jammu & Kashmir what Czechoslovakia did to the “Sudeten Germans” after World War II. On June 18 1945 the new Czechoslovakia announced those Germans and Magyars within their borders who could not prove they had been actively anti-fascist before or during the War would be expelled — the burden of proof was placed on the individual, not the State. Czechoslovakia “transferring” this population was approved by the Heads of the USA, UK and USSR Governments at Potsdam on August 2 1945. By the end of 1946, upto two million Sudeten Germans were forced to flee their homes; thousands may have died by massacre or otherwise; 165,000 remained who were absorbed as Czechoslovak citizens. Among those expelled were doubtless many who had supported Germany and many others who had not — the latter to this day seek justice or even an apology in vain. Czechoslovakia punished none of its nationals for atrocities, saying it had been revenge for Hitler’s evil (”badla” in Bollywood terms) and the post Cold War Czech Government too has declined to render an apology. Revenge is a wild kind of justice (while justice may be a civilised kind of revenge).

India cannot follow this savage precedent in international law. Yet we must recognise there are several hundred and up to several hundred thousand persons on our side of the boundary in the State of Jammu & Kashmir who do not wish to be Indian nationals. These people are presently our nationals ius soli, having been born in territory of the Indian Republic, and/or ius sanguinis, having been born of parents who are Indian nationals; or they may be “stateless” whom we must treat in accordance with the 1954 Convention on Stateless Persons. The fact is they may not wish to carry Indian passports or be Indian nationals.

In this respect their juridical persons resemble the few million “elite” Indians who have in the last few decades freely placed their hands on their hearts and solemnly renounced their Indian nationality, declaring instead their individual fidelity to other nation-states — becoming American, Canadian or Australian citizens, or British subjects or nationals of other countries. Such people include tens of thousands of the adult children of India’s metropolitan “elite”, who are annually visited abroad in the hot summer months by their Indian parents and relatives. They are daughters and sons of New Delhi’s Government and Opposition, of retired generals, air marshals, admirals, ambassadors, cabinet secretaries, public sector bureaucrats, private sector businessmen, university professors, journalists, doctors and many others. India’s most popular film-actress exemplified this “elite” capital-flight when, after a tireless search, she chose a foreign husband and moved to California.

The difference in Jammu & Kashmir would be that those wishing to renounce Indian nationality do not wish to move to any other place but to stay as and where they are, which is in Kashmir Valley or Jammu. Furthermore, they may wish, for whatever reason, to adopt, if they are eligible to do so, the nationality of e.g. the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan or the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

They may believe themselves descended from Ahmad Shah Abdali whose Afghans ruled or mis-ruled Kashmir Valley before being defeated by Ranjit Singh’s Sikhs in 1819. Or they may believe themselves of Iranian descent as, for example, are the Kashmiri cousins of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Or they may simply have wished to be, or are descended from persons who had wished to be on October 26 1947, citizens of the then-new British Dominion of Pakistan — but who came to be prevented from properly expressing such a desire because of the war-like conditions that have prevailed ever since between India and Pakistan. There may be even a few persons in Laddakh who are today Indian nationals but who wish to be considered Tibetans instead; there is, however, no Tibetan Republic and it does not appear there is going to be one.

India, being a free and self-confident country, should allow, in a systematic lawful manner, all such persons to fulfil their desires, and furthermore, should ensure they are not penalised for having expressed such “anti-national” desires or for having acted upon them. Sir Mark Tully, the British journalist, is an example of someone who has been a foreign national who has chosen to reside permanently in the Republic of India — indeed he has been an exemplary permanent resident of our country. There are many others like him. There is no logical reason why all those persons in Jammu & Kashmir who do wish not to be Indians by nationality cannot receive the same legal status from the Indian Republic as has been granted to Sir Mark Tully. There are already thousands of Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi and Nepalese nationals who are lawful permanent residents in the Indian Republic, and who travel back and forth between India and their home countries. There is no logical reason why the same could not be extended to several hundred or numerous thousand people in Jammu & Kashmir who may wish to not accept or to renounce their Indian nationality (for whatever personal reason) and instead become nationals, if they are so eligible, of the Islamic Republics of Afghanistan, Iran or Pakistan, or, for that matter, to remain stateless. On the one hand, their renunciation of Indian nationality is logically equivalent to the renunciation of Indian nationality by the adult children of India’s “elite” settled in North America and Western Europe. On the other hand, their wish to adopt, if they are eligible, a foreign nationality, such as that of Afghanistan, Iran or Pakistan, and yet remain domiciled in Indian territory is logically equivalent to that of many foreign nationals domiciled in India already like Sir Mark Tully.

Now if you are a permanent resident of some country, you may legally have many, perhaps most, but certainly not all the rights and duties of nationals of that country. e.g., though you will have to pay all the same taxes, you may not be allowed to (or be required to) vote in national or provincial elections but you may in local municipal elections. At the same time, permanently residing foreign nationals are supposed to be equal under the law and have equal access to all processes of civil and criminal justice. (As may be expected though from human frailty, even the federal courts of the USA can be notorious in their injustice and racism towards “Green Card” holders relative to “full” American citizens.) Then again, as a permanently resident foreigner, while you will be free to work in any lawful trade or profession, you may not be allowed to work in some or perhaps any Government agencies, certainly not the armed forces or the police. Many Indians in the USA were engineering graduates, and because many engineering jobs or contracts in the USA are related to the US armed forces and require US citizens only, it is commonplace for Indian engineers to renounce their Indian nationality and become Americans because of this. Many Indian-American families have one member who is American, another Indian, a third maybe Canadian, a fourth Fijian or British etc.

The same can happen in the Indian State of Jammu & Kashmir if it evolves peacefully and correctly in the future. It is quite possible to imagine a productive family in a peaceful Kashmir Valley of the future where one brother is an officer in the Indian Armed Forces, another brother a civil servant and a sister a police officer of the J&K State Government, another sister being a Pakistani doctor, while cousins are Afghan or Iranian or “stateless” businessmen. Each family-member would have made his/her choice of nationality as an individual given the circumstances of his/her life, his/her personal comprehension of the facts of history, his/her personal political and/or religious persuasions, and similar deeply private considerations. All would have their children going to Indian schools and being Indian citizens ius soli and/or ius sanguinis. When the children grow up, they would be free to join, if they wished, the existing capital flight of other Indian adult children abroad and there renounce their Indian nationality as many have come to do.

II Revealing Choices Privately with Full Information
For India to implement such a proposal would be to provide an opportunity for all those domiciled in Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Laddakh to express freely and privately as individuals their deepest wishes about their own identities, in a confidential manner, citizen by citizen, case by case. This would thereby solve the fundamental democratic problem that has been faced ever since the Pakistani attack on the original State of Jammu & Kashmir commenced on October 22 1947, which came to be followed by the Rape of Baramulla — causing the formal accession of the State to the then-new Dominion of India on October 26 1947.

A period of, say, 30 months may be announced by the Government of India during which full information would be provided to all citizens affected by this change, i.e. all those presently governed by Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. The condition of full information may include, for example, easy access to Afghan, Iranian and Pakistani newspapers in addition to access to Indian media. Each such person wishing to either remain with Indian nationality (by explicitly requesting an Indian passport if he/she does not have one already — and such passports can be printed in Kashmiri and Urdu too), or to renounce Indian nationality and either remain stateless or adopt, if he/she is so eligible, the nationality of e.g. Afghanistan, Iran, or Pakistan, should be administratively assisted by the Government of India to make that choice.

In particular, he/she should be individually, confidentially, and without fear or favour assured and informed of his/her new rights and responsibilities. For example, a resident of Kashmir Valley who chooses to become a Pakistani citizen, such as Mr Geelani, would now enjoy the same rights and responsibilities in the Indian Republic that Mr Tully enjoys, and at the same time no longer require a visa to visit Pakistan just as Mr Tully needs no visa to enter Britain. In case individual participants in the Hurriyat choose to renounce Indian nationality and adopt some other, they would no longer be able to legally participate in Indian national elections or J&K’s State elections. That is something which they say they do not wish to do in any case. Those members of the Hurriyat who chose e.g. Pakistani nationality while still residing in Jammu & Kashmir, would be free to send postal ballots or cross the border and vote in Pakistan’s elections if and when these occur. There are many Canadians who live permanently in the USA who cross home to Canada in order to cast a ballot.

After the period of 30 months, every person presently under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution would have received a full and fair opportunity to privately and confidentially reveal his/her preference or choice under conditions of full information. “Partition”, “Plebiscite”, and “Military Decision” have been the three alternatives under discussion ever since the National Conference of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and his then-loyal Deputy, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, helped the Indian Army and Air Force in 1947-1948 fight off the savage attack against Jammu & Kashmir State that had commenced from Pakistan on October 22 1947. When, during the Pakistani attack, the Sheikh and Bakshi agreed to the Muslim Conference’s demand for a plebiscite among the people, the Pakistanis balked — the Sheikh and Bakshi then withdrew their offer and decisively and irrevocably chose to accede to the Indian Union. The people of Jammu & Kashmir, like any other, are now bound by the sovereign political commitments made by their forebears. Even so, given the painful mortal facts of the several decades since, the solution here proposed if properly implemented would be an incomparably more thorough democratic exercise than any conceivable plebiscite could ever have been.

Furthermore, regardless of the outcome, it would not entail any further “Partition” or population “transfer” which inevitably would degenerate into a savage balkanization, and has been ruled out as an unacceptable “deal-breaker” by the Indian Republic. Instead, every individual person would have been required, in a private and confidential decision-making process, to have chosen a nationality or to remain stateless — resulting in a multitude of cosmopolitan families in Jammu & Kashmir. But that is something commonplace in the modern world. Properly understood and properly implemented, we shall have resolved the great mortal problem we have faced for more than half a century, and Jammu & Kashmir can finally settle into a period of peace and prosperity. The boundary between India and Pakistan would have been settled by the third alternative mentioned at the time, namely, “Military Decision”.

III. Of Flags and Consulates in Srinagar and Gilgit
Pakistan has demanded its flag fly in Srinagar. This too can happen though not in the way Pakistan has been wishing to see it happen. A Pakistan flag might fly in the Valley just as might an Afghan and Iranian flag as well. Pakistan has wished its flag to fly as the sovereign over Jammu & Kashmir. That is not possible. The best and most just outcome is for the Pakistani flag to fly over a recognised Pakistani consular or visa office in Srinagar, Jammu and Leh. In diplomatic exchange, the Indian tricolour would have to fly over a recognised Indian consular or visa office in Muzaffarabad, Gilgit and Skardu.

Pakistan also may have to act equivalently with respect to the original inhabitants of the territory of Jammu & Kashmir that it has been controlling — allowing those people to become Indian nationals if they so chose to do in free private decisions under conditions of full information. In other words, the “Military Decision” that defines the present boundary between sovereign states must be recognised by Pakistan sincerely and permanently in a Treaty relationship with India — and all of Pakistan’s official and unofficial protégés like the Hurriyat and the “United Jehad Council” would have to do the same. Without such a sovereign commitment from the Government of Pakistan, as shown by decisive actions of lack of aggressive intent (e.g. as came to be implemented between the USA and USSR), the Government of India has no need to involve the Government of Pakistan in implementing the solution of enhancing free individual choice of nationality with regard to all persons on our side of the boundary.

The “Military Decision” regarding the sovereign boundary in Jammu & Kashmir will be so recognised by all only if it is the universally just outcome in international law. And that in fact is what it is.

The original Jammu & Kashmir State began its existence as an entity in international law long before the present Republics of India and Pakistan ever did. Pakistan commences as an entity on August 14 1947; India commences as an entity of international law with its signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 20 1918. Jammu & Kashmir began as an entity on March 16 1846 — when the Treaty of Amritsar was signed between Gulab Singh Dogra and the British, one week after the Treaty of Lahore between the British and the defeated Sikh regency of the child Daleep Singh.

Liaquat Ali Khan and Zafrullah Khan both formally challenged on Pakistan’s behalf the legitimacy of Dogra rule in Jammu & Kashmir since the Treaty of Amritsar. The Pakistani Mission to the UN does so even today. The Pakistanis were following Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru himself, who too had at one point challenged Dogra legitimacy in the past. But though the form of words of the Pakistan Government and the Nehru-Abdullah position were similar in their attacks on the Treaty of Amritsar, their underlying substantive reasons were as different as chalk from cheese. The Pakistanis attacked the Dogra dynasty for being Dogra — i.e. because they were Hindus and not Muslims governing a Muslim majority. Nehru and Abdullah denounced monarchic autocracy in favour of mass democracy, and so attacked the Dogra dynasty for being a dynasty. All were wrong to think the Treaty of Amritsar anything but a lawful treaty in international law.

Furthermore, in this sombre political game of great mortal consequence, there were also two other parties who were, or appeared to be, in favour of the dynasty: one because the dynasty was non-Muslim, the other, despite it being so. Non-Muslim minorities like many Hindus and Sikhs in the business and governmental classes, saw the Dogra dynasty as their protector against a feared communalist tyranny arising from the Sunni Muslim masses of Srinagar Valley, whom Abdullah’s rhetoric at Friday prayer-meetings had been inciting or at least awakening from slumber. At the same time, the communalists of the Muslim Conference who had broken away from Abdullah’s secular National Conference, sought political advantage over Abdullah by declaring themselves in favour of keeping the dynasty — even elevating it to become an international sovereign, thus flattering the already pretentious potentate that he would be called “His Majesty” instead of merely “His Highness”. The ancestry of today’s Hurriyat’s demands for an independent Jammu & Kashmir may be traced precisely to those May 21-22 1947 declarations of the Muslim Conference leader, Hamidullah Khan.

Into this game stumbled the British with all the mix of cunning, indifference, good will, impatience, arrogance and pomposity that marked their rule in India. At the behest of the so-called “Native Princes”, the 1929 Butler Commission had hinted that the relationship of “Indian India” to the British sovereign was conceptually different from that of “British India” to the British sovereign. This view was adopted in the Cabinet Mission’s 12 May 1946 Memorandum which in turn came to be applied by Attlee and Mountbatten in their unseemly rush to “Divide and Quit” India in the summer of 1947.

It created the pure legal illusion that there was such a thing as “Lapse of Paramountcy” at which Jammu & Kashmir or any other “Native State” of “Indian India” could conceivably, even for a moment, become a sovereign enjoying the comity of nations — contradicting Britain’s own position that only two Dominions, India and Pakistan, could ever be members of the British Commonwealth and hence members of the newly created UN. British pusillanimity towards Jammu & Kashmir’s Ruler had even extended to making him a nominal member of Churchill’s War Cabinet because he had sent troops to fight in Burma. But the legal illusion had come about because of a catastrophic misunderstanding on the part of the British of their own constitutional law.

The only legal scholar who saw this was B R Ambedkar in a lonely and brilliant technical analysis released to the press on June 17 1947. No “Lapse of Paramountcy” over the “Native Princes” of Indian India could occur in constitutional law. Paramountcy over Indian India would be automatically inherited by the successor state of British India at the Transfer of Power. That successor state was the new British Dominion of India as well as (when it came to be finalised by Partition from India) the new British Dominion of Pakistan (Postscript: the deleted words represent a mistake made in the original paper, corrected in “Law, Justice & J&K” in view of the fact the UN in 1947 deemed India alone the successor state of British India and Pakistan a new state in the world system). A former “Native Prince” could only choose to which Dominion he would go. No other alternative existed even for a single logical moment. Because the British had catastrophically failed to comprehend this aspect of their own constitutional law, they created a legal vacuum whereby between August 15 and October 22-26 1947, Jammu & Kashmir became a local and temporary sovereign recognised only by the Dominion of Pakistan (until October 22) and the Dominion of India (until October 26). But it was not a globally recognised sovereign and was never going to be such in international law. This was further proved by Attlee refusing to answer the J&K Prime Minister’s October 18 1947 telegram.

All ambiguity came to end with the Pakistani attack of October 22 1947, the Rape of Baramulla, the secession of an “Azad Kashmir”declared by Sardar Ibrahim, and the Pakistani coup détat in Gilgit on October 31 1947 followed by the massacre of Sikh soldiers of the J&K Army at Bunji. With those Pakistani actions, Gulab Singh’s Jammu & Kashmir State, founded on March 16 1846 by the Treaty of Amritsar, ceased to logically exist as an entity in international law and fell into a state of ownerless anarchy. The conflict between Ibrahim’s Muslim communalists backed by the new Dominion of Pakistan and Abdullah’s secularists backed by the new Dominion of India had become a civil war within a larger intra-Commonwealth war that itself was almost a civil war between forces of the same military.

Jammu & Kashmir territory had become ownerless. The Roman Law which is at the root of all municipal and international law in the world today would declare that in the ownership of such an ownerless entity, a “Military Decision” was indeed the just outcome. Sovereignty over the land, waters, forests and other actual and potential resources of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir has become divided by “Military Decision” between the modern Republics of India and Pakistan. By the proposal made herein, the people and their descendants shall have chosen their nationality and their domicile freely across the sovereign boundary that has come to result.

TWO
LAW, JUSTICE AND J&K by Subroto Roy First published in two parts in The Sunday Statesman, July 2 2006 and The Statesman July 3 2006 http://www.thestatesman.net Editorial Page Special Article

I.
For a solution to J&K to be universally acceptable it must be seen by all as being lawful and just. Political opinion in Pakistan and India as well as all people and parties in J&K ~ those loyal to India, those loyal to Pakistan, and any others ~ will have to agree that, all things considered, such is the right course of action for everyone today in the 21st Century, which means too that the solution must be consistent with the facts of history as well as account reasonably for all moral considerations.

On August 14, 1947, the legal entity known as “British India”, as one of its final acts, and based on a sovereign British decision made only two months earlier, created out of some of its territory a new State defined in international law as the “Dominion of Pakistan”. British India extinguished itself the very next day, and the newly independent “Dominion of India” succeeded to all its rights and obligations in international law. As the legal successor of the “India” which had signed the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the San Francisco Declaration of 1945, the Dominion of India was already a member of the new UN as well as a signatory to many international treaties. By contrast, the Dominion of Pakistan had to apply afresh to sign treaties and become a member of international organisations. The theory put forward by Argentina that two new States, India and Pakistan, had been created ab initio, came to be rejected and was withdrawn by Argentina. Instead, Pakistan with the wholehearted backing of India was made a member of the UN, with all except Afghanistan voting in favour. (Afghanistan’s exceptional vote signalled presence of conflict over the Durand Line and idea of a Pashtunistan; Dr Khan Sahib and Abdul Ghaffar Khan were imprisoned by the Muslim League regime of NWFP which later supported the tribesmen who attacked J&K starting October 22, 1947; that conflict remains unresolved to this day, even after the American attack on the Taliban, the restart of a constitutional process in Afghanistan, and the purported mediation of US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.)

Zafrullah Khan, Pakistan’s distinguished first ambassador to the UN, claimed in September 1947: “Pakistan is not a new member of UNO but a successor to a member State which was one of the founders of the Organisation.” He noted that he himself had led India to the final session of the League of Nations in Geneva in 1939, and he wished to say that Pakistan had been present “as part of India… under the latter name” as a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles. This was, however, logically impossible. The Treaty of Versailles long predated (1) Mohammad Iqbal’s Allahabad Address which conceptualised for the first time in the 20th Century a Muslim State in Northwest India; (2) Rahmat Ali’s invention of the word “PAKSTAN” on the top floor of a London omnibus; (3) M. A. Jinnah and Fazlul Haq’s Lahore Resolution; and (4) the final British decision of June 3, 1947 to create by Partition out of “British India” a Dominion named Pakistan. Pakistan could not have acted in international law prior to having come into being or been created or even conceived itself. Zafrullah Khan would have been more accurate to say that the history of Pakistanis until August 14, 1947 had been one in common with that of their Indian cousins ~ or indeed their Indian brothers, since innumerable North Indian Muslim families came to be literally partitioned, with some brothers remaining Indians while other brothers became Pakistanis.

Pakistan was created at the behest of Jinnah’s Muslim League though with eventual agreement of the Indian National Congress (a distant ancestor of the political party going by the same name today). Pakistan arose not because Jinnah said Hindus and Muslims were “two nations” but because he and his League wished for a State where Muslims would find themselves ruled by fellow-Muslims and feel themselves part of a pan-Islamic culture. Yet Pakistan was intended to be a secular polity with Muslim-majority governance, not an Islamic theocracy. That Pakistan failed to become secular was exemplified most poignantly in the persecution Zafrullah himself later faced in his personal life as an Ahmadiya, even while he was Pakistan’s Foreign Minister. (The same happened later to Pakistan’s Nobel-winning physicist Abdus Salaam.) Pakistan was supposed to allow the genius of Indo-Muslim culture to flourish, transplanted from places like Lucknow and Aligarh which would never be part of it. In fact, the areas that are Pakistan today had in the 1937 provincial elections shown scant popular Muslim support for Jinnah’s League. The NWFP had a Congress Government in the 1946 elections, and its supporters boycotted the pro-Pakistan referendum in 1947. The imposition of Urdu culture as Pakistan’s dominant ethos might have come to be accepted later in West Punjab, Sindh and NWFP but it was not acceptable in East Bengal, and led inevitably to the Pakistani civil war and creation of Bangladesh by Sheikh Mujib in 1971.

In August 1947, the new Dominions of India and Pakistan were each supposed to protect their respective minority populations as their first political duty. Yet both palpably failed in this, and were reduced to making joint declarations pleading for peace and an end to communal killings and the abduction of women. The Karachi Government, lacking the wherewithal and administrative machinery of being a nation-state at all, and with only Liaquat and an ailing Jinnah as noted leaders, may have failed more conspicuously, and West Punjab, the Frontier and Sindh were soon emptied of almost all their many Sikhs and Hindus. Instead, the first act of the new Pakistan Government in the weeks after August 14, 1947 was to arrange for the speedy and safe transfer of the North Indian Muslim elite by air from Delhi using chartered British aeroplanes. The ordinary Muslim masses of UP, Delhi and East Punjab were left in danger from or were subjected to Sikh and Hindu mob attacks, especially as news and rumours spread of similar outrages against Pakistan’s departing minorities.

In this spiral of revenge attacks and counter-attacks, bloodshed inevitably spilled over from West and East Punjab into the northern Punjabi plains of Jammu, though Kashmir Valley remained conspicuously peaceful. Zafrullah and Liaquat would later claim it was this communal civil war which had caused thousands of newly decommissioned Mirpuri soldiers of the British Army, and thousands of Afridi and other Frontier tribesmen, to spontaneously act to “liberate” J&K’s Muslims from alleged tyranny under the Hindu Ruler or an allegedly illegal Indian occupation.

But the main attack on J&K State that began from Pakistan along the Manshera-Muzaffarabad road on October 22, 1947 was admittedly far too well-organised, well-armed, well-planned and well-executed to have been merely a spontaneous uprising of tribesmen and former soldiers. In all but name, it was an act of undeclared war of the new Dominion of Pakistan first upon the State of J&K and then upon the Indian Dominion. This became obvious to Field Marshall Auchinlek, who, as Supreme Commander of the armed forces of both India and Pakistan, promptly resigned and abolished the Supreme Command in face of the fact that two parts of his own forces were now at war with one another.

The invaders failed to take Srinagar solely because they lost their military purpose while indulging in the Rape of Baramula. Thousands of Kashmiri women of all communities ~ Muslim, Sikh and Hindu ~ were violated and transported back to be sold in markets in Peshawar and elsewhere. Such was standard practice in Central Asian tribal wars from long before the advent of Islam, and the invading tribesmen shared that culture. India’s Army and Air Force along with the militias of the secular democratic movement led by Sheikh Abdullah and those remaining loyal units of J&K forces, fought off the invasion, and liberated Baramula, Naushera, Uri, Poonch etc. Gilgit had a British-led coup détat against it bringing it under Pakistan’s control. Kargil was initially taken by the Pakistanis and then lost by them. Leh could have been but was not taken by Pakistani forces. But in seeking to protect Leh and to retake Kargil, the Indian Army lost the siege of Skardu ~ which ended reputedly with the infamous communication from the Pakistani commander to his HQ: “All Sikhs killed; all women raped.”

Legal theory
Now, in this grave mortal conflict, the legal theory to which both the Indian and Pakistani Governments have been wedded for sixty years is one that had been endorsed by the British Cabinet Mission in 1946 and originated with the Butler Commission of 1929. Namely, that “Lapse of Paramountcy” over the “Indian India” of the “Native States” could and did occur with the extinction of British India on August 15, 1947. By this theory, Hyderabad, J&K, Junagadh and the several other States which had not acceded to either Dominion were no longer subject to the Crown’s suzerainty as of that date. Both Dominions drew up “Instruments of Accession” for Rulers to sign upon the supposed “Lapse” of Paramountcy that was to occur with the end of British India.

Ever since, the Pakistan Government has argued that Junagadh’s Ruler acceded to Pakistan and Hyderabad’s had wished to do so but both were forcibly prevented by India. Pakistan has also argued the accession to India by J&K’s Ruler was “fraudulent” and unacceptable, and Sheikh Abdullah was a “Quisling” of India and it was not his National Conference but the Muslim Conference of Ibrahim, Abbas and the Mirwaiz (precursor of the Hurriyat) which represented J&K’s Muslims.

India argued that Junagadh’s accession to Pakistan or Hyderabad’s independence were legal and practical impossibilities contradicting the wills of their peoples, and that their integration into the Indian Dominion was carried out in an entirely legitimate manner in the circumstances prevailing.

On J&K, India has argued that not only had the Ruler requested Indian forces to fight off the Pakistani attack, and he acceded formally before Indian forces were sent, but also that democratic principles were fully adhered to in the unequivocal endorsement of the accession by Sheikh Abdullah and the National Conference and further by a duly called and elected J&K Constituent Assembly, as well as generations of Kashmiris since. In the Indian view, it is Pakistan which has been in illegal occupation of Indian territory from Mirpur, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit to Skardu all the way to the Khunjerab Pass, Siachen Glacier and K2, some of which it illegally ceded to its Communist Chinese ally, and furthermore that it has denied the peoples of these areas any democratic voice.

Roman law
In June 1947, it was uniquely and brilliantly argued by BR Ambedkar in a statement to the Press that the British had made a catastrophic error in comprehending their own constitutional law, that no such thing as “Lapse” of Paramountcy existed, and that suzerainty over the “Native States” of “Indian India” would be automatically transferred in international law to the successor State of British India. It was a legal illusion to think any Native State could be sovereign even for a single logical moment. On this theory, if the Dominion of India was the sole successor State in international law while Pakistan was a new legal entity, then a Native State which acceded to Pakistan after August 15, 1947 would have had to do so with the consent of the suzerain power, namely, India, as may be said to have happened implicitly in case of Chitral and a few others. Equally, India’s behaviour in integrating (or annexing) Junagadh and Hyderabad, would become fully explicable ~ as would the statements of Mountbatten, Nehru and Patel before October 1947 that they would accept J&K going to Pakistan if that was what the Ruler and his people desired. Pakistan unilaterally and by surprise went to war against J&K on October 22, declared the accession to India “fraudulent”, and to this day has claimed the territory of the original State of J&K is “disputed”. Certainly, even if the Ambedkar doctrine is applied that no “Lapse” was possible under British law, Pakistan did not recognise India’s jurisdiction there as the suzerain power as of August 15, 1947. Altogether, Pakistan’s sovereign actions from October 22 onwards amounted to acting to annex J&K to itself by military force ~ acts which came to be militarily resisted (with partial success) by India allied with Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference and the remaining forces of J&K. By these military actions, Pakistan revealed that it considered J&K territory to have descended into a legal state of anarchy as of October 22, 1947, and hence open to resolution by “Military Decision” ~ as is indeed the just outcome under Roman Law, the root of all municipal and international law today, when there is a contest between claimants over an ownerless entity.

Choice of nationality
Hence, the present author concluded (“Solving Kashmir”, The Statesman December 1-3, 2005) that the dismemberment of the original J&K State and annexation of its territories by India and Pakistan that has occurred since 1947, as represented first by the 1949 Ceasefire Line and then by the 1972 Line of Control, is indeed the just and lawful outcome prevailing in respect of the question of territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction. The remaining “democratic” question described has to do with free individual choice of nationality by the inhabitants, under conditions of full information and privacy, citizen-by-citizen, with the grant of permanent residency rights by the Indian Republic to persons under its jurisdiction in J&K who may choose not to remain Indian nationals but become Afghan, Iranian or Pakistani nationals instead. Pakistan has said frequently its sole concern has been the freedom of the Muslims of J&K under Indian rule, and any such genuine concern shall have been thereby fully met by India. Indeed, if Pakistan agreed to act similarly, this entire complex mortal problem of decades shall have begun to be peacefully resolved. Both countries are wracked by corruption, poverty and bad governance, and would be able to mutually draw down military forces pit against one another everywhere, so as to begin to repair the grave damage to their fiscal health caused by the deleterious draining away of vast public resources.

THREE
HISTORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR by Subroto Roy First published in two parts in The Sunday Statesman, Oct 29 2006 and The Statesman Oct 30 2006, Editorial Page Special Article, http://www.thestatesman.net

At the advent of Islam in distant Arabia, India and Kashmir in particular were being visited by Chinese Buddhist pilgrims during Harsha’s reign. The great “Master of Law” Hiuen Tsiang visited between 629-645 and spent 631-633 in Kashmir (”Kia-chi-mi-lo”), describing it to include Punjab, Kabul and Kandahar. Over the next dozen centuries, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and again Hindu monarchs came to rule the 85 mile long 40 mile wide territory on the River Jhelum’s upper course known as Srinagar Valley, as well as its adjoining Jammu in the upper plains of the Punjab and “Little Tibet” consisting of Laddakh, Baltistan and Gilgit.

In 1344, a Persian adventurer from Swat or Khorasan by name of Amir or Mirza, who had “found his way into the Valley and in time gained great influence at the Raja’s court”, proclaimed himself Sultan Shamsuddin after the death of the last Hindu monarchs of medieval Kashmir. Twelve of his descendants formed the Shamiri dynasty including the notorious Sikander and the just and tolerant Zainulabidin. Sikander who ruled 1386-1410 “submitted himself” to the Uzbek Taimur the Lame when he approached Kashmir in 1398 “and thus saved the country from invasion”. Otherwise, “Sikander was a gloomy ferocious bigot, and his zeal in destroying temples and idols was so intense that he is remembered as the Idol-Breaker. He freely used the sword to propagate Islam and succeeded in forcing the bulk of the population to conform outwardly to the Muslim religion. Most of the Brahmins refused to apostatise, and many of them paid with their lives the penalty for their steadfastness. Many others were exiled, and only a few conformed.”

Zainulabidin who ruled 1417-1467 “was a man of very different type”. “He adopted the policy of universal toleration, recalled the exiled Brahmins, repealed the jizya or poll-tax on Hindus, and even permitted new temples to be built. He abstained from eating flesh, prohibited the slaughter of kine, and was justly venerated as a saint. He encouraged literature, painting and music, and caused many translations to be made of works composed in Sanskrit, Arabic and other languages.” During his “long and prosperous reign”, he “constructed canals and built many mosques; he was just and tolerant”.

The Shamiri dynasty ended in 1541 when “some fugitive chiefs of the two local factions of the Makri and the Chakk invited Mirza Haidar Dughlat, a relation of Babar, to invade Kashmir. The country was conquered and the Mirza held it (nominally in name of Humayan) till 1551, when he was killed in a skirmish. The line… was restored for a few years, until in 1559 a Chakk leader, Ghazi Shah, usurped the throne; and in the possession of his descendants it remained for nearly thirty years.” This dynasty marks the origins of Shia Islam in Srinagar though Shia influence in Gilgit, Baltistan and Laddakh was of longer standing. Constant dissensions weakened the Chakks, and in 1586, Akbar, then at Attock on the Indus, sent an army under Raja Bhagwan Das into Srinagar Valley and easily made it part of his Empire.

Shivaism and Islam both flourished, and Hindu ascetics and Sufi saints were revered by all. Far from Muslims and Hindus forming distinct nations, here they were genetically related kinsmen living in proximity in a small isolated area for centuries. Indeed Zainulabidin may have had a vast unspoken influence on the history of all India insofar as Akbar sought to attempt in his empire what Zainulabidin achieved in the Valley. Like Zainulabidin, Akbar’s governance of India had as its “constant aim” “to conciliate the Hindus and to repress Muslim bigotry” which in modern political parlance may be seen as the principle of secular governance ~ of conciliating the powerless (whether majority or minority) and repressing the bigotry of the powerful (whether minority or majority). Akbar had made the Valley the summer residence of the Mughals, and it was Jahangir, seeing the Valley for the first time, who apparently said the words agar behest baushad, hamee in hast, hamee in hast, hamee in hast: “if Heaven exists, it is here, it is here, it is here”. Yet like other isolated paradises (such as the idyllic islands of the Pacific Ocean) an accursed mental ether can accompany the magnificent beauty of people’s surroundings. As the historian put it: “The Kashmiris remained secure in their inaccessible Valley; but they were given up to internal weakness and discord, their political importance was gone…”

After the Mughals collapsed, Iran’s Turkish ruler Nadir Shah sacked Delhi in 1739 but the Iranian court fell in disarray upon his death. In 1747 a jirga of Pashtun tribes at Kandahar “broke normal tradition” and asked an old Punjabi holy man and shrine-keeper to choose between two leaders; this man placed young wheat in the hand of the 25 year old Ahmed Shah Saddozai of the Abdali tribe, and titled him “Durrani”. Five years later, Durrani took Kashmir and for the next 67 years the Valley was under Pashtun rule, a time of “unmitigated brutality and widespread distress”. Durrani himself “was wise, prudent and simple”, never declared himself king and wore no crown, instead keeping a stick of young wheat in his turban. Leaving India, he famously recited: “The Delhi throne is beautiful indeed, but does it compare with the mountains of Kandahar?”

Kashmir’s modern history begins with Ranjit Singh of the Sikhs who became a soldier at 12, and in 1799 at age 19 was made Lahore’s Governor by Kabul’s Zaman Shah. Three years later “he made himself master of Amritsar”, and in 1806 crossed the River Sutlej and took Ludhiana. He created a fine Sikh infantry and cavalry under former officers of Napoleon, and with 80,000 trained men and 500 guns took Multan and Peshawar, defeated the Pashtuns and overran Kashmir in 1819. The “cruel rule” of the Pashtuns ended “to the great relief of Kashmir’s inhabitants”.

The British Governor-General Minto (ancestor of the later Viceroy), seeing advantage in the Sikhs staying north of the Sutlej, sent Charles Metcalfe, “a clever young civilian”, to persuade the Khalsa; in 1809, Ranjit Singh and the British in the first Treaty of Amritsar agreed to establish “perpetual amity”: the British would “have no concern” north of the Sutlej and Ranjit Singh would keep only minor personnel south of it. In 1834 and 1838 Ranjit Singh was struck by paralysis and died in 1839, leaving no competent heir. The Sikh polity collapsed, “their power exploded, disappearing in fierce but fast flames”. It was “a period of storm and anarchy in which assassination was the rule” and the legitimate line of his son and grandson, Kharak Singh and Nao Nihal Singh was quickly extinguished. In 1845 the Queen Regent, mother of the five-year old Dalip Singh, agreed to the Khalsa ending the 1809 Treaty. After bitter battles that might have gone either way, the Khalsa lost at Sobraon on 10 February 1846, and accepted terms of surrender in the 9 March 1846 Treaty of Lahore. The kingdom had not long survived its founder: “created by the military and administrative genius of one man, it crumbled into powder when the spirit which gave it life was withdrawn; and the inheritance of the Khalsa passed into the hands of the English.”

Ranjit Singh’s influence on modern J&K was even greater through his having mentored the Rajput Gulab Singh Dogra (1792-1857) and his brothers Dhyan Singh and Suchet Singh. Jammu had been ruled by Ranjit Deo until 1780 when the Sikhs made it tributary to the Lahore Court. Gulab Singh, a great grand nephew of Ranjit Deo, had left home at age 17 in search of a soldierly fortune, and ended up in 1809 in Ranjit Singh’s army, just when Ranjit Singh had acquired for himself a free hand to expand his domains north of the River Sutlej.

Gulab Singh, an intrepid soldier, by 1820 had Jammu conferred upon him by Ranjit Singh with the title of Raja, while Bhimber, Chibal, Poonch and Ramnagar went to his brothers. Gulab Singh, “often unscrupulous and cruel, was a man of considerable ability and efficiency”; he “found his small kingdom a troublesome charge but after ten years of constant struggles he and his two brothers became masters of most of the country between Kashmir and the Punjab”, though Srinagar Valley itself remained under a separate Governor appointed by the Lahore Court. Gulab Singh extended Jammu’s rule from Rawalpindi, Bhimber, Rajouri, Bhadarwah and Kishtwar, across Laddakh and into Tibet. His General Zorawar Singh led six expeditions into Laddakh between 1834 and 1841 through Kishtwar, Padar and Zanskar. In May 1841, Zorawar left Leh with an army of 5000 Dogras and Laddakhis and advanced on Tibet. Defeating the Tibetans at Rudok and Tashigong, he reached Minsar near Lake Mansarovar from where he advanced to Taklakot (Purang), 15 miles from the borders of Nepal and Kumaon, and built a fort stopping for the winter. Lhasa sent large re-inforcements to meet him. Zorawar, deciding to take the offensive, was killed in the Battle of Toyu, on 11-12 December 1841 at 16,000 feet.

A Laddakhi rebellion resulted against Jammu, aided now by the advancing Tibetans. A new army was sent under Hari Chand suppressing the rebellion and throwing back the Tibetans, leading to a peace treaty between Lhasa and Jammu signed on 17 September 1842: “We have agreed that we have no ill-feelings because of the past war. The two kings will henceforth remain friends forever. The relationship between Maharajah Gulab Singh of Kashmir and the Lama Guru of Lhasa (Dalai Lama) is now established. The Maharajah Sahib, with God (Kunchok) as his witness, promises to recognise ancient boundaries, which should be looked after by each side without resorting to warfare. When the descendants of the early kings, who fled from Laddakh to Tibet, now return they will not be stopped by Shri Maharajah. Trade between Laddakh and Tibet will continue as usual. Tibetan government traders coming into Laddakh will receive free transport and accommodations as before, and the Laddakhi envoy will, in turn, receive the same facilities in Lhasa. The Laddakhis take an oath before God (Kunchok) that they will not intrigue or create new troubles in Tibetan territory. We have agreed, with God as witness, that Shri Maharajah Sahib and the Lama Guru of Lhasa will live together as members of the same household.” The traditional boundary between Laddakh and Tibet “as recognised by both sides since olden times” was accepted by the envoys of Gulab Singh and the Dalai Lama.

An earlier 1684 treaty between Laddakh and Lhasa had said that while Laddakh would send tribute to Lhasa every three years, “the king of Laddakh reserves to himself the village of Minsar in Ngarees-khor-sum, that he may be independent there; and he sets aside its revenue for the purpose of meeting the expense involved in keeping up the sacrificial lights at Kangree (Kailas), and the Holy Lakes of Mansarovar and Rakas Tal”. The area around Minsar village near Lake Mansarovar, held by the rulers of Laddakh since 1583, was retained by Jammu in the 1842 peace-treaty, and its revenue was received by J&K State until 1948.

After Ranjit Singh’s death in 1839, Gulab Singh was alienated from the Lahore Court where the rise of his brothers and a nephew aroused enough Khalsa jealousy to see them assassinated in palace intrigues. While the Sikhs imploded, Gulab Singh had expanded his own dominion from Rawalpindi to Minsar ~ everywhere except Srinagar Valley itself. He had apparently advised the Sikhs not to attack the British in breach of the 1809 Treaty, and when they did so he had not joined them, though had he done so British power in North India might have been broken. The British were grateful for his neutrality and also his help in their first misbegotten adventure in Afghanistan. It was Gulab Singh who was now encouraged by both the British and the Sikhs to mediate between them, indeed “to take a leading part in arranging conditions of peace”, and he formally represented the Sikh regency in the negotiations. The 9 March 1846 Treaty of Lahore “set forth that the British Government having demanded in addition to a certain assignment of territory, a payment of a crore and a half of rupees, and the Sikh Government being unable to pay the whole”, Dalip Singh “should cede as equivalent to one crore the hill country belonging to the Punjab between the Beas and the Indus including Kashmir and the Hazara”.

For the British to occupy the whole of this mountainous territory was judged unwise on economic and military grounds; it was not feasible to occupy from a military standpoint and the area “with the exception of the small Valley of Kashmir” was “for the most part unproductive”. “On the other hand, the ceded tracts comprised the whole of the hereditary possessions of Gulab Singh, who, being eager to obtain an indefeasible title to them, came forward and offered to pay the war indemnity on condition that he was made the independent ruler of Jammu & Kashmir.

A separate treaty embodying this arrangement was thus concluded between the British and Gulab Singh at Amritsar on 16 March 1846.” Gulab Singh acknowledged the British Government’s supremacy, and in token of it agreed to present annually to the British Government “one horse, twelve shawl goats of approved breed and three pairs of Kashmir shawls. This arrangement was later altered; the annual presentation made by the Kashmir State was confined to two Kashmir shawls and three romals (handkerchiefs).” The Treaty of Amritsar “put Gulab Singh, as Maharaja, in possession of all the hill country between the Indus and the Ravi, including Kashmir, Jammu, Laddakh and Gilgit; but excluding Lahoul, Kulu and some areas including Chamba which for strategic purposes, it was considered advisable (by the British) to retain and for which a remission of Rs 25 lakhs was made from the crore demanded, leaving Rs 75 lakhs as the final amount to be paid by Gulab Singh.” The British retained Hazara which in 1918 was included into NWFP. Through an intrigue emanating from Prime Minister Lal Singh in Lahore, Imamuddin, the last Sikh-appointed Governor of Kashmir, sought to prevent Gulab Singh taking possession of the Valley in accordance with the Treaty’s terms. By December 1846 Gulab Singh had done so, though only with help of a British force which included 17,000 Sikh troops “who had been fighting in the campaign just concluded”. (Contemporary British opinion even predicted Sikhism like Buddhism “would become extinct in a short time if it were not kept alive by the esprit de corps of the Sikh regiments”.)

The British in 1846 may have been glad enough to allow Gulab Singh take independent charge of the new entity that came to be now known as the “State of Jammu & Kashmir”. Later, however. they and their American allies would grow keen to control or influence the region vis-à-vis their new interests against the Russian and Soviet Empires.

FOUR
PAKISTAN’S ALLIES by Subroto Roy First published in two parts in The Sunday Statesman, June 4 2006, The Statesman June 5 2006, Editorial Page Special Article, http://www.thestatesman.net

From the 1846 Treaty of Amritsar creating the State of Jammu & Kashmir until the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Britain and later the USA became increasingly interested in the subcontinent’s Northwest. The British came to India by sea to trade. Barren, splendid, landlocked Afghanistan held no interest except as a home of fierce tribes; but it was the source of invasions into the Indian plains and prompted a British misadventure to install Shah Shuja in place of Dost Mohammad Khan leading to ignominious defeat. Later, Afghanistan was seen as the underbelly of the Russian and Soviet empires, and hence a location of interest to British and American strategic causes.

In November 1954, US President Dwight Eisenhower authorized 30 U-2 spy aircraft to be produced for deployment against America’s perceived enemies, especially to investigate Soviet nuclear missiles which could reach the USA. Reconnaissance balloons had been unsuccessful, and numerous Western pilots had been shot down taking photographs from ordinary military aircraft. By June 1956, U-2 were making clandestine flights over the USSR and China. But on May 1 1960, one was shot or forced down over Sverdlovsk, 1,000 miles within Soviet territory. The Americans prevaricated that it had taken off from Turkey on a weather-mission, and been lost due to oxygen problems. Nikita Kruschev then produced the pilot, Francis Gary Powers, who was convicted of spying, though was exchanged later for a Soviet spy. Powers had been headed towards Norway, his task to photograph Soviet missiles from 70,000 ft, his point of origin had been an American base 20 miles from Peshawar.

America needed clandestine “forward bases” from which to fly U-2 aircraft, and Pakistan’s ingratiating military and diplomatic establishment was more than willing to offer such cooperation, fervently wishing to be seen as a “frontline state” against the USSR. “We will help you defeat the USSR and we are hopeful you will help us defeat India” became their constant refrain. By 1986, the Americans had been permitted to build air-bases in Balochistan and also use Mauripur air-base near Karachi.

Jammu & Kashmir and especially Gilgit-Baltistan adjoins the Pashtun regions whose capital has been Peshawar. In August-November 1947, a British coup d’etat against J&K State secured Gilgit-Baltistan for the new British Dominion of Pakistan.

The Treaty of Amritsar had nowhere required Gulab Singh’s dynasty to accept British political control in J&K as came to be exercised by British “Residents” in all other Indian “Native States”. Despite this, Delhi throughout the late 19th Century relentlessly pressed Gulab Singh’s successors Ranbir Singh and Partab Singh to accept political control. The Dogras acquiesced eventually. Delhi’s desire for control had less to do with the welfare of J&K’s people than with protection of increasing British interests in the area, like European migration to Srinagar Valley and guarding against Russian or German moves in Afghanistan. “Sargin” or “Sargin Gilit”, later corrupted by the Sikhs and Dogras into “Gilgit”, had an ancient people who spoke an archaic Dardic language “intermediate between the Iranian and the Sanskritic”. “The Dards were located by Ptolemy with surprising accuracy on the West of the Upper Indus, beyond the headwaters of the Swat River (Greek: Soastus) and north of the Gandarae (i.e. Kandahar), who occupied Peshawar and the country north of it. This region was traversed by two Chinese pilgrims, Fa-Hsien, coming from the north about AD 400 and Hsuan Tsiang, ascending from Swat in AD 629, and both left records of their journeys.”

Gilgit had been historically ruled by a Hindu dynasty called Trakane; when they became extinct, Gilgit Valley “was desolated by successive invasions of neighbouring rulers, and in the 20 or 30 years ending with 1842 there had been five dynastic revolutions. The Sikhs entered Gilgit about 1842 and kept a garrison there.” When J&K came under Gulab Singh, “the Gilgit claims were transferred with it, and a boundary commission was sent” by the British. In 1852 the Dogras were driven out with 2,000 dead. In 1860 under Ranbir Singh, the Dogras “returned to Gilgit and took Yasin twice, but did not hold it. They also in 1866 invaded Darel, one of the most secluded Dard states, to the south of the Gilgit basin but withdrew again.”

The British appointed a Political Agent in Gilgit in 1877 but he was withdrawn in 1881. “In 1889, in order to guard against the advance of Russia, the British Government, acting as the suzerain power of Kashmir, established the Gilgit Agency”. The Agency was re-established under control of the British Resident in Jammu & Kashmir. “It comprised the Gilgit Wazarat; the State of Hunza and Nagar; the Punial Jagir; the Governorships of Yasin, Kuh-Ghizr and Ishkoman, and Chilas”. In 1935, the British demanded J&K lease to them for 60 years Gilgit town plus most of the Gilgit Agency and the hill-states Hunza, Nagar, Yasin and Ishkuman. Hari Singh had no choice but to acquiesce. The leased region was then treated as part of British India, administered by a Political Agent at Gilgit responsible to Delhi, first through the Resident in J& K and later a British Agent in Peshawar. J& K State no longer kept troops in Gilgit and a mercenary force, the Gilgit Scouts, was recruited with British officers and paid for by Delhi. In April 1947, Delhi decided to formally retrocede the leased areas to Hari Singh’s J& K State as of 15 August 1947. The transfer was to formally take place on 1 August.

On 31 July, Hari Singh’s Governor arrived to find “all the officers of the British Government had opted for service in Pakistan”. The Gilgit Scouts’ commander, a Major William Brown aged 25, and his adjutant, a Captain Mathieson, planned openly to engineer a coup détat against Hari Singh’s Government. Between August and October, Gilgit was in uneasy calm. At midnight on 31 October 1947, the Governor was surrounded by the Scouts and the next day he was “arrested” and a provisional government declared.

Hari Singh’s nearest forces were at Bunji, 34 miles from Gilgit, a few miles downstream from where the Indus is joined by Gilgit River. The 6th J& K Infantry Battalion there was a mixed Sikh-Muslim unit, typical of the State’s Army, commanded by a Lt Col. Majid Khan. Bunji controlled the road to Srinagar. Further upstream was Skardu, capital of Baltistan, part of Laddakh District where there was a small garrison. Following Brown’s coup in Gilgit, Muslim soldiers of the 6th Infantry massacred their Sikh brothers-at-arms at Bunji. The few Sikhs who survived escaped to the hills and from there found their way to the garrison at Skardu.

On 4 November 1947, Brown raised the new Pakistani flag in the Scouts’ lines, and by the third week of November a Political Agent from Pakistan had established himself at Gilgit. Brown had engineered Gilgit and its adjoining states to first secede from J&K, and, after some talk of being independent, had promptly acceded to Pakistan. His commander in Peshawar, a Col. Bacon, as well as Col. Iskander Mirza, Defence Secretary in the new Pakistan and later to lead the first military coup détat and become President of Pakistan, were pleased enough. In July 1948, Brown was awarded an MBE (Military) and the British Governor of the NWFP got him a civilian job with ICI~ which however sent him to Calcutta, where he came to be attacked and left for dead on the streets by Sikhs avenging the Bunji massacre. Brown survived, returned to England, started a riding school, and died in 1984. In March 1994, Pakistan awarded his widow the Sitara-I-Pakistan in recognition of his coup détat.

Gilgit’s ordinary people had not participated in Brown’s coup which carried their fortunes into the new Pakistan, and to this day appear to remain without legislative representation. It was merely assumed that since they were mostly Muslim in number they would wish to be part of Pakistan ~ which also became Liaquat Ali Khan’s assumption about J&K State as a whole in his 1950 statements in North America. What the Gilgit case demonstrates is that J&K State’s descent into a legal condition of ownerless anarchy open to “Military Decision” had begun even before the Pakistani invasion of 22 October 1947 (viz. “Solving Kashmir”, The Statesman, 1-3 December 2005). Also, whatever else the British said or did with respect to J & K, they were closely allied to the new Pakistan on the matter of Gilgit.

The peak of Pakistan’s Anglo-American alliance came with the enormous support in the 1980s to guerrilla forces created and headquartered in Peshawar, to battle the USSR and Afghan communists directly across the Durand Line. It was this guerrilla war which became a proximate cause of the collapse of the USSR as a political entity in 1991. President Ronald Reagan’s CIA chief William J. Casey sent vast sums in 1985-1988 to supply and train these guerrillas. The Washington Post and New Yorker reported the CIA training guerrillas “in the use of mortars, rocket grenades, ground-to-air missiles”. 200 hand-held Stinger missiles were supplied for the first time in 1986 and the New Yorker reported Gulbudin Hikmatyar’s “Hizbe Islami” guerrillas being trained to bring down Soviet aircraft. “Mujahideen had been promised two Stingers for every Soviet aircraft brought down. Operators who failed to aim correctly were given additional training… By 1986, the United States was so deeply involved in the Afghan war that Soviet aircraft were being brought down under the supervision of American experts”. (Raja Anwar, The Tragedy of Afghanistan, 1988, p. 234).

The budding US-China détente brokered by Pakistan came into full bloom here. NBC News on 7 January 1980 said “for the first time in history (a senior State Department official) publicly admitted the possibility of concluding a military alliance between the United States and China”. London’s Daily Telegraph reported on 5 January 1980 “China is flying large supplies of arms and ammunition to the insurgents in Afghanistan. According to diplomatic reports, supplies have arrived in Pakistan from China via the Karakoram Highway…. A major build-up of Chinese involvement is underway ~ in the past few days. Scores of Chinese instructors have arrived at the Shola-e-Javed camps.”

Afghan reports in 1983-1985 said “there were eight training camps near the Afghan border operated by the Chinese in Sinkiang province” and that China had supplied the guerrillas “with a variety of weapons including 40,000 RPG-7 and 20,000 RPG-II anti tank rocket launchers.” Like Pakistan, “China did not publicly admit its involvement in the Afghan conflict: in 1985 the Chinese Mission at the UN distributed a letter denying that China was extending any kind of help to the Afghan rebels” (Anwar, ibid. p. 234). Support extended deep and wide across the Arab world. “The Saudi and Gulf rulers … became the financial patrons of the Afghan rebels from the very start of the conflict”. Anwar Sadat, having won the Nobel Peace Prize, was “keen to claim credit for his role in Afghanistan…. by joining the Afghanistan jihad, Sadat could re-establish his Islamic credentials, or so he believed. He could thus not only please the Muslim nations but also place the USA and Israel in his debt.” Sadat’s Defence Minister said in January 1980: “Army camps have been opened for the training of Afghan rebels; they are being supplied with weapons from Egypt” and Sadat told NBC News on 22 September 1981 “that for the last twenty-one months, the USA had been buying arms from Egypt for the Afghan rebels. He said he had been approached by the USA in December 1979 and he had decided to `open my stores’. He further disclosed that these arms were being flown to Pakistan from Egypt by American aircraft. Egypt had vast supplies of SAM-7 and RPG-7 anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons which Sadat agreed to supply to Afghanistan in exchange for new American arms. The Soviet weapons, being light, were ideally suited to guerrilla warfare. … the Mujahideen could easily claim to have captured them from Soviet and Afghan troops in battle.… Khomeini’s Iran got embroiled in war (against Iraq) otherwise Kabul would also have had to contend with the full might of the Islamic revolutionaries.” (Anwar ibid. p. 235).

Afghanistan had been occupied on 26-27 December 1979 by Soviet forces sent by the decrepit Leonid Brezhnev and Yuri Andropov to carry out a putsch replacing one communist, Hafizullah Amin, with a rival communist and Soviet protégé, Babrak Karmal. By 1985 Brezhnev and Andropov were dead and Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev had begun his attempts to reform the Soviet system, usher in openness, end the Cold War and in particular withdraw from Afghanistan, which by 1986 he had termed “a bleeding wound”. Gorbachev replaced Karmal with a new protégé Najibullah Khan, who was assigned the impossible task of bringing about national reconciliation with the Pakistan-based guerrillas and form a national government. Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan in February 1989 having lost 14,500 dead, while more than a million Afghans had been killed since the invasion a decade earlier.

Not long after Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution, Gregory Zinoviev had said that international communism “turns today to the peoples of the East and says to them, `Brothers, we summon you to a Holy War first of all against British imperialism!’ At this there were cries of Jehad! Jehad! And much brandishing of picturesque Oriental weapons.” (Treadgold, Twentieth Century Russia, 1990, p. 213). Now instead, the Afghan misadventure had contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Empire itself, the USSR ceasing to be a political entity by 1991, and even Gorbachev being displaced by Boris Yeltsin and later Vladimir Putin in a new Russia.

What resulted for the people of the USA and Britain and the West in general was that they no longer had to live under threat of hostile Soviet tanks and missiles, while the people of Russia, Ukraine and the other erstwhile Soviet republics as well as Eastern Europe were able to throw off the yoke of communism that had oppressed them since the Bolshevik Revolution and instead to breathe the air of freedom.

What happened to the people of Afghanistan, however, was that they were plunged into further ghastly civil war for more than ten years. And what happened to the people of Pakistan was that their country was left resembling a gigantic Islamist military camp, awash with airfields, arms, ammunition and trained guerrillas, as well as a military establishment enlivened as always by perpetual hope that these supplies, provisions and personnel of war might find alternative use in attacks against India over J& K. “We helped you when you wished to see the Soviet Union defeated and withdrawing in Afghanistan”, Pakistan’s generals and diplomats pleaded with the Americans and British, “now you must help us in our wish to see India defeated and withdrawing in Kashmir”. Pakistan’s leaders even believed that just as the Soviet Union had disintegrated afterwards, the Indian Union perhaps might be made to do the same. Not only were the two cases as different as chalk from cheese, Palmerstone’s dictum there are no permanent allies in the politics of nations could not have found more apt use than in what actually came to take place next.

Pakistan’s generals and diplomats felt betrayed by the loss of Anglo-American paternalism towards them after 1989.

Modern Pakistanis had never felt they subscribed to the Indian nationalist movement culminating in independence in August 1947. The Pakistani state now finally declared its independence in the world by exploding bombs in a nuclear arsenal secretly created with help purchased from China and North Korea. Pakistan’s leaders thus came to feel in some control of Pakistan’s destiny as a nation-state for the first time, more than fifty years after Pakistan’s formal creation in 1947. If nothing else, at least they had the Bomb.

Secondly, America and its allies would not be safe for long since the civil war they had left behind in Afghanistan while trying to defeat the USSR now became a brew from which arose a new threat of violent Islamism. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, whom Pakistan’s military and the USA had promoted, now encouraged unprecedented attacks on the American mainland on September 11 2001 ~ causing physical and psychological damage which no Soviet, Chinese or Cuban missiles ever had been allowed to do. In response, America attacked and removed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, once again receiving the cooperative use of Pakistani manpower and real estate ~ except now there was no longer any truck with the Pakistani establishment’s wish for a quid pro quo of Anglo-American support against India on J&K. Pakistan’s generals and diplomats soon realised their Anglo-American alliance of more than a half-century ended on September 11 2001. Their new cooperation was in killing or arresting and handing over fellow-Muslims and necessarily lacked their earlier feelings of subservience and ingratiation towards the Americans and British, and came to be done instead under at least some duress. No benefit could be reaped any more in the fight against India over Jammu & Kashmir. An era had ended in the subcontinent.

FIVE

WHAT TO TELL MUSHARRAF: PEACE IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT NON-AGGRESSIVE PAKISTANI INTENTIONS by Subroto Roy, First published in The Statesman December 15 2006 Editorial Page Special Article, www.thestatesman.net

In June 1989 a project at an American university involving Pakistani and other scholars, including one Indian, led to the book Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s published in Karachi, New Delhi and elsewhere. The book reached Nawaz Sharif and the Islamabad elite, and General Musharraf’s current proposal on J&K, endorsed warmly by the US State Department last week, derives from the last paragraph of its editorial introduction: “Kashmir… must be demilitarised and unified by both countries sooner or later, and it must be done without force. There has been enough needless bloodshed on the subcontinent… Modern Pakistanis and Indians are free peoples who can voluntarily agree in their own interests to alter the terms set hurriedly by Attlee or Mountbatten in the Indian Independence Act 1947. Nobody but we ourselves keeps us prisoners of superficial definitions of who we are or might be. The subcontinent could evolve its political identity over a period of time on the pattern of Western Europe, with open borders and (common) tariffs to the outside world, with the free movement of people, capital, ideas and culture. Large armed forces could be reduced and transformed in a manner that would enhance the security of each nation. The real and peaceful economic revolution of the masses of the subcontinent would then be able to begin.”

The editors as economists decried the waste of resources involved in the Pakistan-India confrontation, saying it had “greatly impoverished the general budgets of both Pakistan and India. If it has benefited important sections of the political and military elites of both countries, it has done so only at the expense of the general welfare of the masses.”

International law

Such words may have been bold in the early 1990s but today, a decade and a half later, they seem incomplete and rather naïve even to their author, who was myself, the only Indian in that project. Most significantly, the position in international law in the context of historical facts had been wholly neglected. So had been the manifest nature of the contemporary Pakistani state.

Jammu & Kashmir became an entity in international law when the Treaty of Amritsar was signed between Gulab Singh and the British on March 16 1846. British India itself became an entity in international law much later, possibly as late as June 1919 when it signed the Treaty of Versailles. As for Pakistan, it had no existence in world history or international law until August 14 1947, when the British created it as a new entity out of certain demarcated areas of British India and gave it the status of a Dominion. British India dissolved itself on August 15 1947 and the Dominion of India became its successor-state in international law on that date. As BR Ambedkar pointed out at the time, the new India automatically inherited British India’s suzerainty over any and all remaining “princely” states of so-called “Indian India”. In case of J&K in particular, there never was any question of it being recognised as an independent entity in global international law.

The new Pakistan, by entering a Standstill Agreement with J&K as of August 15 1947, did locally recognise J&K’s sovereignty over its decision whether to join Pakistan or India. But this Pakistani recognition lasted only until the attack on J&K that commenced from Pakistani territory as of October 22 1947, an attack in which Pakistani forces were complicit (something which, in different and mutating senses, has continued ever since). The Dominion of India had indicated it might have consented if J&K’s Ruler had decided to accede to Pakistan in the weeks following the dissolution of British India. But no such thing happened: what did happen was the descent of J&K into a condition of legal anarchy.

Beginning with the Pakistani attack on J&K as of October 22 upto and including the Rape of Baramulla and the British-led Pakistani coup détat in Gilgit on one side, and the arrival of Indian forces as well as mobilization by Sheikh Abdullah and Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad of J&K’s civilians to repel the Pakistani invaders on the other side, the State of Jammu & Kashmir became an ownerless entity in international law. In Roman Law, from which all modern international and municipal law ultimately derives, the ownership of an ownerless entity is open to be determined by “military decision”. The January 1949 Ceasefire Line that came to be renamed the Line of Control after the 1971 Bangladesh War, demarcates the respective territories that the then-Dominions and later Republics of India and Pakistan acquired by “military decision” of the erstwhile State of J&K which had come to cease to exist.

What the Republic of India means by saying today that boundaries cannot be redrawn nor any populations forcibly transferred is quite simply that the division of erstwhile J&K territory is permanent, and that sovereignty over it is indivisible. It is only sheer ignorance on the part of General Musharraf’s Indian interviewer the other day which caused it to be said that Pakistan was willing to “give up” its claim on erstwhile J&K State territory which India has held: Pakistan has never had nor even made such a claim in international law. What Pakistan has claimed is that India has been an occupier and that there are many people inhabiting the Indian area who may not wish to be Indian nationals and who are being compelled against their will to remain so ~ forgetting to add that precisely the same could be said likewise of the Pakistani-held area.

Accordingly, the lawful solution proposed in these pages a year ago to resolve that matter, serious as it is, has been that the Republic of India invite every person covered under Article 370, citizen-by- citizen, under a condition of full information, to privately and without fear decide, if he/she has not done so already, between possible Indian, Iranian, Afghan or Pakistani nationalities ~ granting rights and obligations of permanent residents to any of those persons who may choose for whatever private reason not to remain Indian nationals. If Pakistan acted likewise, the problem of J&K would indeed come to be resolved. The Americans, as self- appointed mediators, have said they wish “the people of the region to have a voice” in a solution: there can be no better expression of such voice than allowing individuals to privately choose their own nationalities and their rights and responsibilities accordingly. The issue of territorial sovereignty is logically distinct from that of the choice of nationality by individual inhabitants.

Military de-escalation

Equally significant though in assessing whether General Musharraf’s proposal is an anachronism, is Pakistan’s history since 1947: through Ayub’s 1965 attack, the civil war and secession of Bangladesh, the Afghan war and growth of the ISI, the Kargil incursion, the 1999 coup détat, and, once or twice removed, the 9/11 attacks against America. It is not a history that allows any confidence to arise in Indians that we are not dealing with a country misgoverned by a tiny arrogant exploitative military elite who remain hell-bent on aggression against us. Like the USA and USSR twenty years ago, what we need to negotiate about, and negotiate hard about, is an overall mutual military drawdown and de-escalation appropriate to lack of aggressive intent on both sides. Is General Musharraf willing to discuss that? It would involve reciprocal verifiable assessment of one another’s reasonable military requirements on the assumption that each was not a threatening enemy of the other. That was how the USA-USSR drawdown and de-escalation occurred successfully. If General Musharraf is unwilling to enter such a discussion, there is hardly anything to talk about with him. We should wait for democracy to return.

SIX

“AN INDIAN REPLY TO PRESIDENT ZARDARI: REWARDING PAKISTAN FOR BAD BEHAVIOUR LEADS TO SCHIZOPHRENIC RELATIONSHIPS”

by Subroto Roy, December 17 2008

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari’s recent argument in the New York Times resembles closely the well-known publications of his ambassador to the United States, Mr Husain Haqqani. Unfortunately, this Zardari-Haqqani thesis about Pakistan’s current predicament in the world and the world’s predicament with Pakistan is shot through with clear factual and logical errors. These need to be aired because true or useful conclusions cannot be reached from mistaken premises or faulty reasoning.

1. Origins of Pakistan, India, J&K, and their mutual problems

Mr Zardari makes the following seemingly innocuous statement:

“…. the two great nations of Pakistan and India, born together from the same revolution and mandate in 1947, must continue to move forward with the peace process.”

Now as a matter of simple historical fact, the current entities in the world system known as India and Pakistan were not “born together from the same revolution and mandate in 1947”. It is palpably false to suppose they were and Pakistanis indulge in wishful thinking and self-deception about their own political history if they suppose this.

India’s Republic arose out of the British Dominion known as “India” which was the legal successor of the entity known previously in international law as “British India”. British India had had secular governance and so has had the Indian Republic.

By contrast, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan arose out of a newly created state in international law known as the British Dominion of Pakistan, consisting of designated territory carved out of British India by a British decision and coming into existence one day before British India extinguished itself. (Another new state, Bangladesh, later seceded from Pakistan.)

The British decision to create territory designated “Pakistan” had nothing to do with any anti-British “revolution” or “mandate” supported by any Pakistani nationalism because there was none. (Rahmat Ali’s anti-Hindu pamphleteering in London could be hardly considered Pakistani nationalism against British rule. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s Pashtun patriots saw themselves as Indian, not Pakistani.)

To the contrary, the British decision had to do with a small number of elite Pakistanis — MA Jinnah foremost among them — demanding not to be part of the general Indian nationalist movement that had been demanding a British departure from power in the subcontinent. Jinnah’s separatist party, the Muslim League, was trounced in the 1937 provincial elections in all the Muslim-majority areas of British India that would eventually become Pakistan. Despite this, in September 1939, Britain, at war with Nazi Germany, chose to elevate the political power of Jinnah and his League to parity with the general Indian nationalist movement led by MK Gandhi. (See, Francis Robinson, in William James and Subroto Roy (eds), Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s.) Britain needed India’s mostly Muslim infantry-divisions — the progenitors of the present-day Pakistan Army — and if that meant tilting towards a risky political idea of “Pakistan” in due course, so it would be. The thesis that Pakistan arose from any kind of “revolution” or “mandate” in 1947 is fantasy — the Muslim super-elite that invented and endorsed the Pakistan idea flew from Delhi to Karachi in chartered BOAC Dakotas, caring not a hoot about the vulnerability of ordinary Muslim masses to Sikh and Hindu majority wrath and retaliation on the ground.

Modern India succeeded to the rights and obligations of British India in international law, and has had a recognized existence as a state since at least the signing of the Armistice and Treaty of Versailles in 1918-1919. India was a founding member of the United Nations, being a signatory of the 1945 San Francisco Declaration, and an original member of the Bretton Woods institutions. An idea put forward by Argentina that as of 1947 India and Pakistan were both successor states of British India was rejected by the UN (Argentina withdrew its own suggestion), and it was universally acknowledged India was already a member of the UN while Pakistan would have to (and did) apply afresh for membership as a newly created state in the UN. Pakistan’s entry into the UN had the enthusiastic backing of India and was opposed by only one existing UN member, Afghanistan, due to a conflict that continues to this day over the legitimacy of the Durand Line that bifurcated the Pashtun areas.

Such a review of elementary historical facts and the position in law of Pakistan and India is far from being of merely pedantic interest today. Rather, it goes directly to the logical roots of the conflict over the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) — a state that itself originated as an entity in the world system a full century before Pakistan was to do so and more than half a century before British India did, but which would collapse into anarchy and civil war in 1947-1949.

Britain (or England) had been a major nation-state in the world system recognized since Grotius first outlined modern international law. On March 16 1846, Britain entered into a treaty, the Treaty of Amritsar, with one Gulab Singh, and the “State of Jammu & Kashmir” came to arise as a recognizable entity in international law for the first time. (See my “History of Jammu and Kashmir” published in The Statesman, Oct 29-30 2006, available elsewhere here.)

Jammu & Kashmir continued in orderly existence as a state until it crashed into legal and political anarchy and civil war a century later. The new Pakistan had entered into a “Standstill Agreement” with the State of Jammu & Kashmir as of August 15 1947. On or about October 22 1947, Pakistan unilaterally ended that Standstill Agreement and instead caused military forces from its territory to attack the State of Jammu & Kashmir along the Mansehra Road towards Baramula and Srinagar, coinciding too with an Anglo-Pakistani coup d’etat in Gilgit and Baltistan (see my “Solving Kashmir”; “Law, Justice & J&K”; “Pakistan’s Allies”, all published in The Statesman in 2005-2006 and available elsewhere here).

The new Pakistan had chosen, in all deliberation, to forswear law, politics and diplomacy and to resort to force of arms instead in trying to acquire J&K for itself via a military decision. It succeeded only partially. Its forces took and then lost both Baramula and Kargil; they may have threatened Leh but did not attempt to take it; they did take and retain Muzaffarabad and Skardu; they were never near taking the summer capital, Srinagar, though might have threatened the winter capital, Jammu.

All in all, a Ceasefire Line came to be demarcated on the military positions as of February 1 1949. After a war in 1971 that accompanied the secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan, that Ceasefire Line came to be renamed the “Line of Control” between Pakistan and India. An ownerless entity may be acquired by force of arms — the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir in 1947-1949 had become an ownerless entity that had been dismembered and divided according to military decision following an armed conflict between Pakistan and India. The entity in the world system known as the “State of Jammu & Kashmir” created on March 16 1846 by Gulab Singh’s treaty with the British ceased to exist as of October 22 1947. Pakistan had started the fight over J&K but there is a general rule of conflicts that he who starts a fight does not get to finish it.

Such is the simplest and most practical statement of the history of the current problem. The British, through their own compulsions and imperial pretensions, raised all the talk about a “Lapse of Paramountcy” of the British Crown over the “Native Princes” of “Indian India”, and of how, the “Native Princes” were required to “accede” to either India or Pakistan. This ignored Britain’s own constitutional law. BR Ambedkar pointed out with unsurpassed clarity that no “Lapse of Paramountcy” was possible even for a single logical moment since “Paramountcy” over any “Native Princes” who had not joined India or Pakistan as of August 15 1947, automatically passed from British India to its legal successor, namely, the Dominion of India. It followed that India’s acquiescence was required for any subsequent accession to Pakistan – an acquiescence granted in case of Chitral and denied in case of Junagadh.

What the Republic of India means by saying today that boundaries cannot be redrawn nor any populations forcibly transferred is quite simply that the division of erstwhile J&K territory is permanent, and that sovereignty over it is indivisible. What Pakistan has claimed is that India has been an occupier and that there are many people inhabiting the Indian area who may not wish to be Indian nationals and who are being compelled against their will to remain so ~ forgetting to add that precisely the same could be said likewise of the Pakistani-held area. The lawful solution I proposed in “Solving Kashmir, “Law, Justice and J&K” and other works has been that the Republic of India invite every person covered under its Article 370, citizen-by-citizen, under a condition of full information, to privately and without fear decide, if he/she has not done so already, between possible Indian, Iranian, Afghan or Pakistani nationalities ~ granting rights and obligations of permanent residents to any of those persons who may choose for whatever private reason not to remain Indian nationals. If Pakistan acted likewise, the problem of J&K would indeed come to be resolved. The Americans, as self-appointed mediators, have said they wish “the people of the region to have a voice” in a solution: there can be no better expression of such voice than allowing individuals to privately choose their own nationalities and their rights and responsibilities accordingly. The issue of territorial sovereignty is logically distinct from that of the choice of nationality by individual inhabitants.

2. Benazir’s assassination falsely compared to the Mumbai massacres
Secondly, President Zardari draws a mistaken comparison between the assassination last year of his wife, Benazir Bhutto, and the Mumbai massacres a few weeks ago. Ms Bhutto’s assassination may resemble more closely the assassinations in India of Indira Gandhi in 1984 and Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.

Indira Gandhi died in “blowback” from the unrest she and her younger son and others in their party had opportunistically fomented among Sikh fundamentalists and sectarians since the late 1970s. Rajiv Gandhi died in “blowback” from an erroneous imperialistic foreign policy that he, as Prime Minister, had been induced to make by jingoistic Indian diplomats, a move that got India’s military needlessly involved in the then-nascent Sri Lankan civil war. Benazir Bhutto similarly may be seen to have died in “blowback” from her own political activity as prime minister and opposition leader since the late 1980s, including her own encouragement of Muslim fundamentalist forces. Certainly in all three cases, as in all assassinations, there were lapses of security too and imprudent political judgments made that contributed to the tragic outcomes.

Ms Bhutto’s assassination has next to nothing to do with the Mumbai massacres, besides the fact the perpetrators in both cases were Pakistani terrorists. President Zardari saying he himself has lost his wife to terrorism is true but not relevant to the proper diagnosis of the Mumbai massacres or to Pakistan-India relations in general. Rather, it serves to deflect criticism and condemnation of the Pakistani state’s pampered handing of Pakistan’s terrorist masterminds, as well as the gross irresponsibility of Pakistan’s military scientists (not AQ Khan) who have been recently advocating a nuclear first strike against India in the event of war.

3. Can any religious nation-state be viable in the modern world?

President Zardari’s article says:

“The world worked to exploit religion against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by empowering the most fanatic extremists as an instrument of destruction of a superpower. The strategy worked, but its legacy was the creation of an extremist militia with its own dynamic.”

This may be overly simplistic. As pointed out in my article “Pakistan’s Allies”, Gregory Zinoviev himself after the Bolshevik Revolution had declared that international communism “turns today to the peoples of the East and says to them, ‘Brothers, we summon you to a Holy War first of all against British imperialism!’ At this there were cries of Jehad! Jehad! And much brandishing of picturesque Oriental weapons.” (Treadgold, Twentieth Century Russia, 1990, p. 213). For more than half of the 20th century, orthodox Muslims had been used by Soviet communists against British imperialism, then by the British and Americans (through Pakistan) against Soviet communism. Touché! Blowback and counter-blowback! The real question that arises from this today may be why orthodox Muslims have allowed themselves to be used either way by outside forces and have failed in developing a modern nation-state and political culture of their own. Europe and America only settled down politically after their religious wars were over. Perhaps no religious nation-state is viable in the modern world.

4. Pakistan’s behaviour leads to schizophrenia in international relations

President Zardari pleads for, or perhaps demands, resources from the world:

“the best response to the Mumbai carnage is to coordinate in counteracting the scourge of terrorism. The world must act to strengthen Pakistan’s economy and democracy, help us build civil society and provide us with the law enforcement and counterterrorism capacities that will enable us to fight the terrorists effectively.”

Six million pounds from Mr Gordon Brown, so much from here or there etc – President Zardari has apparently demanded 100 billion dollars from America and that is the price being talked about for Pakistan to dismantle its nuclear weapons and be brought under an American “nuclear umbrella” instead.

I have pointed out elsewhere that what Pakistan seems to have been doing in international relations for decades is send out “mixed messages” – i.e. contradictory signals, whether in thought, word or deed. Clinical psychologists following the work of Gregory Bateson would say this leads to confusion among Pakistan’s interlocutors (a “double bind”) and the symptoms arise of what may be found in schizophrenic relationships. (See my article “Do President-elect Obama’s Pakistan specialists believe…”; on the “double bind” theory, an article I chanced to publish in the Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1986, may be of interest).

Here are a typical set of “mixed messages” emanating from Pakistan’s government and opinion-makers:

“We have nuclear weapons
“We keep our nuclear weapons safe from any misuse or unauthorized use
“We are willing to use nuclear weapons in a first strike against India
“We do not comprehend the lessons of Hiroshima-Nagasaki
“We do not comprehend the destruction India will visit upon us if we strike them
“We are dangerous so we must not be threatened in any way
“We are peace-loving and want to live in peace with India and Afghanistan
“We love to play cricket with India and watch Bollywood movies
“We love our Pakistan Army as it is one public institution that works
“We know the Pakistan Army has backed armed militias against India in the past
“We know these militias have caused terrorist attacks
“We are not responsible for any terrorist attacks
“We do not harbour any terrorists
“We believe the world should pay us to not use or sell our nuclear weapons
“We believe the world should pay us to not encourage the terrorists in our country
“We believe the world should pay us to prevent terrorists from using our nuclear weapons
“We hate India and do not want to become like India
“We love India and want to become like India
“We are India and we are not India…”

Etc.

A mature rational responsible and self-confident Pakistan would have said instead:

“We apologise to India and other countries for the outrageous murders our nationals have committed in Mumbai and elsewhere
“We ask the world to watch how our professional army is deployed to disarm civilian and all “non-state” actors of unauthorized firearms and explosives
“We do not need and will not demand or accept a dollar in any sort of foreign aid, military or civilian, to solve our problems
“We realize our economic and political institutions are a mess and we must clean them up
“We will strive to build a society imbued with what Iqbal described as the spirit of modern times..”

As someone who created at great personal cost at an American university twenty years ago the book Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s, I have a special interest in hoping that Pakistan shall find the path of wisdom.”

Posted in Academic economics, Academic research, Asia and the West, asymmetric information, Britain in India, Dogras, Economic Theory, Freedom, Governance, Government of India, Government of Pakistan, Imperialism, India's Constitution, India's Democracy, India's Diplomacy, India's Jurisprudence, India's Muslims, India's Partition, India's Polity, India's Rule of Law, India's secularism, India's Union-State relations, India-Pakistan peace process, International diplomacy, International Law, Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu & Kashmir in international law, Law, Liberalism/Libertarianism, Pakistan in international law, Pakistan's origins, Pakistan's psychology, Pakistan's military, Pakistan's terrorist masterminds, Pakistan, Balochistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistani expansionism, Pervez Musharraf, Political legitimacy, Political Philosophy, Political Science, Regional cooperation, Roman Law, Secular governance, Secularism in practice, Sheikh Abdullah, Sikhs, Sunnis and Shias, War, World History, Zafrullah Khan, Zainulabidin. Leave a Comment »

Comment on Mr Clemons’ note on the Pakistan military after the Rawalpindi attack

October 12, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

From Facebook:

Mr Clemons has made interesting and astute observations on Pakistan’s military following the Rawalpindi attack of the last few days.

But some political history is important. Pakistan’s military between 1947 and 1971 had built up an illusion that it could, with help from Patton tanks and Sabre jets and Starfighters, defeat India (one Pakistani is equivalent to 9 Indians etc etc).

In Dec 1971, despite the machinations of Nixon and Kissinger with the Pakistani strongman Yahya Khan, a free Bangladesh came to be born from the old colonized East Pakistan. 90,000 Pakistani POWS languished in Indian camps for more than a year (after being protected by India from Bangladeshi revenge).

The debacle led to some candid soul-searching and the official Pakistani inquiry commission squarely blamed debauchery and corruption in the Army from Yahya Khan downwards for bad generalship. Bangladesh seceded from West Pakistan essentially because of internal political contradictions, e.g. the imposition of Urdu on Bengali-speakers etc. Certainly Indian military help proved vital at the end but India did not cause the secession. (I was personally helping at a refugee camp as a schoolboy volunteer, when Ted Kennedy flew in to visit etc… stories for another time).

The Pakistan military has maintained a self-delusion that India caused the break-up of the original Pakistan and that India harbours similar designs to this day. India neither does nor has the capacity or motivation to do so.

The second factor was that Zia, who succeeded Yahya as military strongman and US ally, brought in Islamisation of the officer-corps as a counterweight to the trends of debauchery and corruption. These might be two crucial subjects for discussion if US discussants decide to go on a reflective retreat with Pakistan’s top military brass.

Posted in Bangladesh, India's military doctrine, India's Army, India's Bangladesh liberation war, India's Military Defence, India-Pakistan peace process, Pakistan in international law, Pakistan's history, Pakistan's military, Pakistan's terrorist training institutes, Pakistan, Balochistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistani expansionism, War, World History. Leave a Comment »

Crunch-time: Do New Delhi’s bureaucrats have guts enough to walk away from the ADB, World Bank etc? (And does India have a Plan B, or for that matter a Plan A, in dealing with Communist China?)

September 20, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

I have had slight experience with the so-called multilateral financial institutions — attending a conference and helping to produce a book on Asia & Latin America with the ADB back in Hawaii in the 1980s, and being a consultant for some months at the World Bank and the IMF in Washington DC in the 1990s. The institutions seemed to me gluttonous and incompetent though I did meet a dozen good economic bureaucrats and two or three who were excellent in Washington. The “Asian Development Bank” (under Japan’s sway as the Word Bank is under American sway and the IMF under European sway) was reputedly worst of the three, though the Big Daddy of wasteful intellectually corrupt international bureaucracies must be the UN itself, especially certain notorious UN-affiliates around the world.

Now there are newspapers reports the ADB has apparently voted, under Communist Chinese pressure, to prevent itself from

“formally acknowledging Arunachal Pradesh as part of India”.

This should be enough for any self-respecting Government of India to want to give notice to the ADB’s President that the Republic of India is moving out of its membership. Ongoing projects and any in the pipeline need not be affected as we would meet our debt obligations. There is no reason after all why a treaty-defined entity may not conclude deals with non-members or former members and vice versa.

But New Delhi’s bureaucrats may not find the guts to think on these lines as they would have to overcome their personal interests involved in taking up the highly lucrative non-jobs that these places offer. They will need some political kicking from the top. Thus in 1990-91 I had said to Rajiv Gandhi that “on foreign policy we should ‘go bilateral’ with good strong ties with individual countries, and drop all the multilateral hogwash”… “We do not ask for or accept public foreign aid from foreign Governments or international organizations at “concessional” terms. Requiring annual foreign aid is an indication of economic maladjustment, having to do with the structure of imports and exports and the international price of the Indian rupee. Receiving the so-called aid of others, e.g. the so-called Aid-India Consortium or the soft-loans of the World Bank, diminishes us drastically in the eyes of the donors, who naturally push their own agendas and gain leverage in the country in various ways in return. Self-reliance from so-called foreign aid would require making certain economic adjustments in commercial and exchange-rate policies, as well as austerity in foreign-exchange spending by the Government….”

Today, nineteen years later, I would say the problem has to do less with the structure of India’s balance of payments than with trying to normalise away from the rotten state of our government accounts and public finances. I have thus said “getting on properly with the mundane business of ordinary government and commerce… may call for a gradual withdrawal of India from all or most of the fancy, corrupt international bureaucracies in New York, Washington, Geneva etc, focussing calmly but determinedly instead on improved administration and governance at home.” We need those talented and well-experienced Indian staff-members in these international bureaucracies to return to work to improve our own civil services and public finances of the Union and our more than two dozen States.

As for India developing a Plan B (or a Plan A) in dealing with Communist China, my ten articles republished here yesterday provide an outline of both.

My Ten Articles on China, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan in relation to India (2007-2009)

September 19, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

I have had a close interest in China ever since the “Peking Spring” more than thirty years ago (if not from when I gave all my saved pocket money to Nehru in 1962 to fight the Chinese aggression) but I had not published anything relating to China until 2007-2008 when I published the ten articles listed below:

“Understanding China”, The Statesman Oct 22 2007

“India-US interests: Elements of a serious Indian foreign policy”, The Statesman Oct 30 2007

“China’s India Aggression”, The Statesman, Nov 5 2007,

“Surrender or Fight? War is not a cricket match or Bollywood movie. Can India fight China if it must? “ The Statesman, Dec 4 2007

“China’s Commonwealth: Freedom is the Road to Resolving Taiwan, Tibet, Sinkiang” The Statesman, December 17, 2007

“Nixon & Mao vs India: How American foreign policy did a U-turn about Communist China’s India aggression”. The Statesman, January 7 2008.

“Lessons from the 1962 War: there are distinct Tibetan, Chinese and Indian points of view that need to be mutually comprehended,” The Statesman, January 15, 2008

“China’s India Example: Tibet, Xinjiang May Not Be Assimilated Like Inner Mongolia, Manchuria”, The Statesman, March 25, 2008

“China’s force and diplomacy: The need for realism in India”, The Statesman, May 31, 2008

“Transparency and history” (with Claude Arpi), Business Standard, Dec 31 2008

With new tensions on the Tibet-India border apparently being caused by the Chinese military, these may be helpful for India to determine a Plan B, or even a Plan A, in its dealings with Communist China.

https://independentindian.com/2009/11/25/on-the-zenith-and-nadir-of-us-india-relations/

Posted in Academic research, Asia and the West, Britain in India, British imperialism, British military doctrine and traditions, Chiang Kaishek, China, China's Commonwealth, China's dissidents, China's Economy, China's expansionism, China's History, China's military, China's nationalism, China's Politics, China's religions, China's wars, China-India Relations, China-Pakistan relations, China-Taiwan problem, China-Tibet problem, Chumbi Valley, Cold War, Communist China, Communists, Confucius, Dalai Lama, Democracy, Deng Xiaoping, Diplomacy, Diplomatic protocols, Diplomatic recognition, Dorjiev, East Turkestan, Gobi Desert, Government of India, Government of Pakistan, Himalayas, India in international law, India's military doctrine, India's communists, India's Foreign Policy, India's History, India's Land, India's Military Defence, India-China relations, India-USA interests, Indian subcontinent, International diplomacy, International Law, International politics, Jammu & Kashmir in international law, Jawaharlal Nehru, Kuomintang, Laddakh, Laws of war, Manchu and Mongol Tartars, Manmohan Singh, Mao Zedong, Military doctrine, Mongolia, Open and Closed Societies, Sikkim, Sinification, Sinkiang, Sino-Indian Border, Strategic thinking, Taiwan, Tibet, War, World History, Xinjiang, Zhou Enlai. Leave a Comment »

Seventy Years Today Since the British Government Politically Empowered MA Jinnah (2009)

September 4, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

Seventy Years Today Since the British Government Politically Empowered MA Jinnah

by

Subroto Roy

The bloated armies of Indian and Pakistani historians and pseudo-historians have failed to recognize the significance of the precise start of the Second World War upon the fortunes of the subcontinent. Yet, twenty years ago, in the book I and WE James created at an American university, Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s (now in pdf), one of our authors, Professor Francis Robinson of the University of London, had set out the principal facts most clearly as to what flowed from the September 4 1939 empowerment of MA Jinnah by the British Government.

Germany invaded Poland on September 1 1939 and Britain declared war on Germany on September 3. The next day, Linlithgow, the British Viceroy in India, started to treat MA Jinnah’s Muslim League on par with the Congress’s nationalist movement led by MK Gandhi. Until September 4 1939, the British “had had little time for Jinnah and his League. The Government’s declaration of war on Germany on 3 September, however, transformed the situation. A large part of the army was Muslim, much of the war effort was likely to rest on the two Muslim majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal. The following day, the Viceroy invited Jinnah for talks on an equal footing with Gandhi” (Robinson, in James & Roy (eds) Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy 1989, 1992).

Jinnah himself was amazed by the new British attitude towards him: “suddenly there was a change in the attitude towards me. I was treated on the same basis as Mr Gandhi. I was wonderstruck why all of a sudden I was promoted and given a place side by side with Mr Gandhi.”

Jinnah’s political weakness had been made obvious by the electoral defeats the Muslim League had suffered in the 1937 elections in the very provinces which more or less came to constitute West Pakistan and today constitute modern Pakistan. Britain, at war with Germany and soon Japan, was faced with the intransigence of the Congress leadership. It was unsurprising this would contribute to the British tilt empowering Congress’s declared adversary, Jinnah and the Muslim League, and hence make credible the possibility of the Pakistan that they had demanded:

“As the Congress began to demand immediate independence, the Viceroy took to reassuring Jinnah that Muslim interests would be safeguarded in any constitutional change. Within a few months, he was urging the League to declare a constructive policy for the future, which was of course presented in the Lahore Resolution. In their August 1940 offer, the British confirmed for the benefit of Muslims that power would not be transferred against the will of any significant element in Indian life. And much the same confirmation was given in the Cripps offer nearly two years later…. Throughout the years 1940 to 1945, the British made no attempt to tease out the contradictions between the League’s two-nation theory, which asserted that Hindus and Muslims came from two different civilisations and therefore were two different nations, and the Lahore Resolution, which demanded that ‘Independent States’ should be constituted from the Muslim majority provinces of the NE and NW, thereby suggesting that Indian Muslims formed not just one nation but two. When in 1944 the governors of Punjab and Bengal urged such a move on the Viceroy, Wavell ignored them, pressing ahead instead with his own plan for an all-India conference at Simla. The result was to confirm, as never before in the eyes of leading Muslims in the majority provinces, the standing of Jinnah and the League. Thus, because the British found it convenient to take the League seriously, everyone had to as well—Congressmen, Unionists, Bengalis, and so on….”(Robinson in James & Roy (eds) Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy, pp. 43-44).

Even British socialists who were sympathetic to Indian aspirations, would grow cold when the Congress seemed to abjectly fail to appreciate Britain’s predicament during war with Germany and Japan (Gandhi, for example, dismissing the 1942 Cripps offer as a “post-dated cheque on a failing bank”).

By the 1946 elections, Muslim mass opinion had changed drastically to seem to be strongly in favour of the creation of a Pakistan. The intervening years were the ones when urban mobs all over India could be found shouting the League’s slogans: “Larke lenge Pakistan; Marke lenge Pakistan, Khun se lenge Pakistan; Dena hoga Pakistan; Leke rahenge Pakistan” (We will spill blood to take Pakistan, you will have to yield a Pakistan.)

Events remote from India’s history and geography, namely, the rise of Hitler and the Second World War, had contributed between 1937 and 1947 to the change of fortunes of the Muslim League and hence of all the people of the subcontinent.

The British had long discovered that the mutual antipathy between Muslims and Hindus could be utilised in fashioning their rule; specifically that the organisation and mobilisation of Muslim communal opinion in the subcontinent was a useful counterweight to any pan-Indian nationalism which might emerge to compete with British authority. As early as 1874, well before Allan Octavian Hume, ICS, had conceived the Indian National Congress, John Strachey, ICS, was to observe “The existence side by side of these (Hindu and Muslim) hostile creeds is one of the strong points in our political position in India. The better classes of Mohammedans are a source of strength to us and not of weakness. They constitute a comparatively small but an energetic minority of the population whose political interests are identical with ours.” By 1906, when a deputation of Muslims headed by the Aga Khan first approached the British pleading for communal representation, Minto the Viceroy replied: “I am as firmly convinced as I believe you to be that any electoral representation in India would be doomed to mischievous failure which aimed at granting a personal enfranchisement, regardless of the beliefs and traditions of the communities composing the population of this Continent.” Minto’s wife wrote in her diary that the effect was “nothing less than the pulling back of sixty two millions of (Muslims) from joining the ranks of the seditious opposition.” (The true significance of MAK Azad may have been that he, precisely at the same time, did indeed feel within himself the nationalist’s desire for freedom strongly enough to want to join the ranks of that seditious opposition.)

If a pattern emerges as to the nature of the behaviour of the British political state with respect to the peoples of this or similar regions, it is precisely the economic one of rewarding those loyal to them who had protected or advanced their interests, and penalising those perceived to be acting against their will. It is wishful to think of members of the British political state as benevolent paternalists, who met with matching deeds their often philanthropic words about promoting the general welfare of their colonial wards or subordinate allies. The slogan “If you are not with us you are against us” that has come to be used by many from the Shining Path Maoists of Peru to President George W. Bush, had been widely applied already by the British in India, especially in the form “If you dare not to be with us, we will be certainly with your adversaries”. It came to be used with greatest impact on the subcontinent’s fortunes in 1939 when Britain found itself reluctantly at war with Hitler’s Germany.

British loyalties lay with those who had been loyal to them.

Hence in the “Indian India” of the puppet princes, Hari Singh and other “Native Princes” who had sent troops to fight as part of the British armies would be treated with a pusillanimity and grandeur so as to flatter their vanities, Sheikh Abdullah’s rebellion representing the Muslim masses of the Kashmir Valley would be ignored. And in British India, Jinnah the conservative Anglophile and his elitist Muslim League would be backed, while the radicalised masses of the Gandhi-Bose-Nehru Congress would have to be suppressed as a nuisance.

(Similarly, much later, Pakistan’s bemedalled army generals would be backed by the United States against Mujibur Rehman’s impoverished student-rebels, and India’s support frowned upon regardless of how just the Bangladeshi cause.)

Altruism is a limited quality in all human affairs, never more scarce than in relations between nations. In “Pakistan’s Allies”, I showed how the strategic interests of Britain, and later Britain’s American ally, came to evolve in the Northwest of the subcontinent ever since the 1846 Treaty of Amritsar as long as a Russian and later a Soviet empire had existed. A similar evolution of British domestic interests in India is distinctly observable in British support for the Pakistan Movement itself, leading on August 14 1947 to the creation of the new Dominion of Pakistan.

Sheikh Abdullah’s democratic urges or Nehru’s Indian nationalism or the general welfare of the subcontinent’s people had no appeal as such to the small and brittle administrative machinery in charge of Britain’s Indian Empire — even though individual Britons had come to love, understand and explain India for the permanent benefit of her people. This may help to explain how Britain’s own long democratic traditions at home could often be found so wonderful by Indians yet the actions of the British state abroad so incongruent with them.

Posted in Bangladesh, Britain, Britain in India, British foreign policy, British history, British imperialism, British military doctrine and traditions, Democracy, European history, European politics, FCR Robinson, Freedom, Germany, Governance, Government of India, Government of Pakistan, Hitler, Imperialism, India's religions, India's Bangladesh liberation war, India's History, India's independence, India's Nationalism, India's Partition, India's secularism, India-Pakistan peace process, Indian National Congress Origins, International diplomacy, International Law, International politics, Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu & Kashmir in international law, Jawaharlal Nehru, Liberalism/Libertarianism, Life and death, MA Jinnah, Maulana Azad, Military doctrine, MK Gandhi, Mujibur Rahman, Muslim and Hindu communalism, Pakistan in international law, Pakistan's origins, Pakistan's history, Pakistan, Balochistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Poland, Serendipity and international relations, Sheikh Abdullah, University of Hawaii, US Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Espionage, US Pakistan policy, War, World History, World War. 7 Comments »

On the curious pre-9/11 quaintness of current criticism of India’s 1998 nuclear tests

August 28, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

I said towards the end of my June 4-5 2006 article in The Statesman “Pakistan’s Allies”

“…America and its allies would not be safe for long since the civil war they had left behind in Afghanistan while trying to defeat the USSR now became a brew from which arose a new threat of violent Islamism. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, whom Pakistan’s military and the USA had promoted, now encouraged unprecedented attacks on the American mainland on September 11 2001 ~ causing physical and psychological damage which no Soviet, Chinese or Cuban missiles ever had been allowed to do….”

Earlier, in The Statesman of October 26 2005, I had outlined a series of recent US espionage failures

“There have been three or four enormous failures of American espionage (i.e. intelligence and counter-intelligence) in the last 20 years. The collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of Soviet communism were salubrious events but they had not been foreseen by the United States which was caught unawares by the speed and nature of the developments that took place. Other failures have been catastrophic.

First, there was the failure to prevent the attack that took place on the American mainland on September 11 2001. It killed several thousand civilians and caused vast, perhaps irreparable, psychological and physical destruction to the United States. The attack was without precedent. The December 7 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in Hawaii, though a surprise, was carried out by one military against another military and did not affect very many civilians (except that thousands of American civilians of Japanese ancestry came to be persecuted and placed in concentration camps for years by the US Government). And the last time the American mainland had been attacked before 2001 was in 1814 when British troops marched south from Canada and burnt down the Capitol and the US President’s house in Washington.

Secondly, there has been a failure to discover any reasonable justification for the American-led attack on Iraq and its invasion and occupation. Without any doubt, America has lost, at the very least, an incalculable amount of international goodwill as a result of this, let aside suffering two thousand young soldiers killed, fifteen thousand wounded, and an unending cost in terms of prestige and resources in return for the thinnest of tangible gains. India at great cost liberated East Pakistan from the brutal military tyranny of Yahya Khan and Tikka Khan in December 1971 but the average Bangladeshi today could hardly care less. Regardless of what form of government emerges in Iraq now, there is no doubt the mass of the Iraqi people will cheer the departure of the bulk of foreign troops and tanks from their country (even if a permanent set of a dozen hermetically sealed American bases remain there for ever, as appears to have been planned).

When things go wrong in any democracy, it is natural and healthy to set up a committee to investigate, and America has done that several times now. For such committees to have any use at all they must be as candid as possible and perhaps the most candid of the American committees has been the US Government’s 9/11 Commission. But it too has appeared no closer to finding out who was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks or who financed it and who, precisely, executed it. Osama Bin Laden may have been the ideological head of a movement allied to the perpetrators, and Bin Laden undoubtedly expressed his glee afterwards, but it beggars the imagination that Bin Laden could have been executive president in charge of this operation while crawling around Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. If not him, then whom? Mossad the Israeli spy agency was supposed to have pointed to a super-secret invisible Lebanese terrorist but nobody really knows. The biggest modern mass murder remains unsolved.

As for solutions, the American 9/11 Commission went into the same politically correct formulae that came to be followed in 2005 by British PM Tony Blair’s New Labour Cabinet, namely, that “moderate” peace-loving Muslims must be encouraged and bribed not to turn to terrorism (indeed to expose those among them who do), while “extremist” Muslims must be stamped out with brute force. This rests on a mistaken premise that an economic carrot-and-stick policy can work in creating a set of external incentives and disincentives for Muslims, when in fact believing Muslims, like many other religious believers, are people who feel the power of their religion deep within themselves and so are unlikely to be significantly affected by external incentives or disincentives offered by non-believers. Another committee has been the United States Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence which reported in July 2004, and from whose findings have stemmed as an offshoot the current matter about whether high government officials broke the law that is being investigated by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Bertrand Russell said in his obituary of Ludwig Wittgenstein that he had once gone about looking under all the tables and chairs to prove to Wittgenstein that there was not a hippopotamus present in the room. In the present case, however, there is in fact a very large hippopotamus present in the room yet the entire American foreign policy establishment has seemed to refuse to wish to see it. Saddam Hussain and OBL are undoubtedly certifiable members of the international gallery of rogues – but the central fact remains they were rogues who were in alliance with America’s defined strategic interests in the 1980s. Saddam Hussain’s Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 and gassed the Kurds in 1986; an Iraqi Mirage on May 17 1987 fired two Exocet missiles at the USS Stark killing 37 American sailors and injuring 21. The Americans did nothing. The reason was that Saddam was still in favour at the time and had not yet become a demon in the political mythology of the American state, and it was expedient for nothing to be done. Indeed Saddam’s Iraq was explicitly removed in 1982 from the US Government’s list of states sponsoring terrorism because, according to the State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, it had “moved closer to the policies of its moderate Arab neighbours”.

The very large hippopotamus that is present in the room at the moment is April Glaspie, the highly regarded professional career diplomat and American Ambassador to Iraq at the time of the 1990 Gulf War. Saddam Hussein as President had a famous meeting with her on July 25 1990, eight days before he invaded Kuwait. The place was the Presidential Palace in Baghdad and the Iraqis videotaped the meeting:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – “I have direct instructions from President (George Herbert Walker) Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship – not confrontation – regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait’s borders?

Saddam Hussein – As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U. S. Ambassador Glaspie – What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein – If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab – our strategic goal in our war with Iran – we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam’ s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States’ opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

Saddam had seen himself fighting Islamic Iran on behalf of the Kuwaitis, Saudis and other Arabs, and Islamic Iran was of course the sworn adversary of the USA at least since Khomeini had deposed America’s ally, the Shah. Therefore Saddam could not be all bad in the eyes of the State Department. On August 2 1990, the Iraqi troops seen by American satellites amassed on the border, invaded and occupied Kuwait. On September 2 1990, the Iraqis released the videotape and transcript of the July 29 Saddam-Glaspie meeting and Glaspie was confronted by British journalists as she left the Embassy:

Journalist 1 – Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador? (No answer from Glaspie)

Journalist 2 – You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn’t warn him not to. You didn’t tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite – that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 – You encouraged this aggression – his invasion. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – Obviously, I didn’t think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 – You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran(Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as a historic part of their country!

Journalist 1 – America green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signalling Saddam that some aggression was okay – that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) – the territories claimed by Iraq?

Glaspie said nothing, the car door closed behind her, the car drove off. Nothing has been apparently heard from Glaspie ever since, and we may have to wait for her memoirs in 25 years when they are declassified to come to know what happened. It is astonishing, however, that the 521 page report of the US Senate’s Select Committee on espionage about Iraq before the 2003 war finds no cause whatsoever to mention Glaspie at all (at least in its public censored version). It is almost as if Glaspie has never existed and her conversation with Saddam never happened. Glaspie has disappeared down an Orwellian memory-hole. Yet her conversation with Saddam was the last official, recorded conversation between the Americans and Saddam while they were still on friendly terms.

There may be many causes explaining how such serious failures have come to occur in a country where billions of dollars have been annually spent on espionage. Among them must be that while America’s great strengths have included creation of the finest advanced scientific and technological base on earth, America’s great intellectual weaknesses in recent decades have included an impatience with historical and philosophical reflection of all sorts, and that includes reflection about her own as well as other cultures. This is exemplified too in the third palpable failure of intelligence of the last 20 years, which has been to have not foreseen or prevented atomic weapons from being developed by America and Britain’s Islamist ally and client-state, Pakistan, and thence to have failed to prevent the proliferation of such weapons in general. The consequences of that may yet turn out to be the most grave.”

Now as it happens, a couple of days ago, eleven years after the Government of India’s May 1998 underground nuclear tests at Pokhran, an Indian scientist who had something to do with them has engaged in a general discussion about the tests’ efficacy. Indian newspapers duly reported this as part of an ongoing domestic discussion about nuclear policy.

Oddly enough, there has been an instantaneous reaction from American critics of India’s nuclear activities – beginning with Dr Jeffrey Lewis:

“Yes, Virginia, India’s H-bomb fizzled. K Santhanam (who was director of test site preparations for India’s 1998 nuclear tests… has admitted what everyone else has known for a long time — that India’s 1998 test of a thermonuclear device was unsuccessful.…”

Followed by Mark Hibbs:

“Is this cool or what? I remember what happened when I wrote that article in the fall of 1998 saying in the headline that the US had concluded that the Indian “H-Bomb failed.” Almost overnight after the article was published I got a huge bundle of papers from BARC and DAE sent to me by diplomatic pouch from Mumbai informing me with all kinds of numbers that I was wrong. I gave the papers to laboratory geoscientists at several European countries and the US. One main CTBTO monitoring scientist told me explicitly: “Nope. The stuff in these papers is shitty science. They haven’t shown that you are wrong.” That having been said, please note however that, as PK Iyengar had made the case to me back a decade ago, once again this “news” is surfacing in India because their bomb makers want to keep testing. Some things in India are changing fast. Other things aren’t.”

Followed by Charles Mead:

“I got into a huge pissing match with the Indians on this issue as I was the principal author of Barker et. al. 1998 which had the yield estimates far below the Indian press releases. A number of Indian scientists tried to submit a comment to Science rebutting our analysis. We asked them to provide the in-country seismic data on which they based their analysis, but they refused. Luckily, in the end, their comment was rejected and never published. On a related note, I saw the other day that wikipedia has a glowing description of the Indian 1998 tests, citing the inflated yields and saying the tests were a huge technical accomplishment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokhran-II In the next day or so, I plan to submit a corrected analysis.”

Mark Hibbs:

“Charles, I recall one of your co-authors back then explained to me in nitty-gritty detail your frustration on this with these guys. Please do correct the record for posterity.”

Charles Meade:

“Their arguments at the time were quite remarkable. They said that our seismic data didn’t reflect the true yield because of a complex interference pattern caused by the simultaneous tests. Under these circumstances, they said that one could only obtain the correct yield from near field data. We said, “fine, show it to us”. They refused and that was the end of their paper.”

Yale Simkin:

“The Indian argument: ‘For us to have a nuclear deterrent we must weaponise. For this, we must have fusion weapons, because these are smaller, lighter, and more efficient than fission weapons.’ is a lot of hooey. They claim to be building a deterrent force, not a war-fighting arsenal with a counter-force capability. For the size and mass of their likely early-generation fusion designs, they can instead use basic fission bombs yielding in the multi-dekakiloton range – multiples of the hell weapons that incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That should be sufficient to deter any rational adversary. And if they aren’t rational, then you have no deterrent.”

Hmmm. The choice of terminology even within such a brief discussion might reveal a little of the mind-set: “shitty science”, “pissing match”, “a lot of hooey”…

Rather uncool, really.

Specifically:

“A number of Indian scientists tried to submit a comment to Science rebutting our analysis. We asked them to provide the in-country seismic data on which they based their analysis, but they refused. Luckily, in the end, their comment was rejected and never published…. Their arguments at the time were quite remarkable. They said that our seismic data didn’t reflect the true yield because of a complex interference pattern caused by the simultaneous tests. Under these circumstances, they said that one could only obtain the correct yield from near field data. We said, “fine, show it to us”. They refused and that was the end of their paper.

Hmmm — once more. The words that I have placed in bold above might be prima facie evidence of incorrect and hence unfair editorial procedures having been followed at Science (distinguished as its general reputation may be as a journal). Why were these here-unnamed “Indian scientists” not allowed to speak for themselves, rather than have their now-unknown statements be bowdlerised out of their critics’ memories a decade later (when these critics themselves had been the subject of the rebuttal)? Perhaps the rebuttal should not have been refused publication even if it came with an editorial caveat that all the data deemed necessary had not been provided (which may have been the case, for example, due to a Government gag-order). Readers today would have been able to judge for themselves.

I am happy to claim zero expertise in the field known rather sweetly as “Crater Morphology”; but post 9/11, post-Iraq war, it does seem to me a rather quaint form of prejudice to be using such words as those quoted above in discussing the precise tonnage of the Indian explosions and how, really, India’s scientists were not up to it. Perhaps, when matters of public policy or international diplomacy become involved, science everywhere is too important to be left to the scientists.

Are all the available data out there in the public domain on which to judge whether the Indian explosions in 1998 were or were not what was precisely claimed at the time? Apparently not.

Does it matter to anything today? Hardly. Not even to the credibility of the Government of India (something on which I have had a lot to say over decades).

Do Governments lie? Yes Virginia, they do.

Governments the world over, whether Indian, American, Russian, Chinese, British, French, Israeli, Arab, Pakistani or whatever, let aside inter-Governmental bodies constituted by these Governments, are prone to exaggeration, propaganda, self-delusion, self-deception as well as deliberate mendacity, perhaps routinely on a daily basis.

(For myself as an individual, I have had to battle the demonstrated and deliberate mendacity of the government of one of the fifty States in the US federal courts for two decades now, as told of elsewhere…)

An Age of Government Mendacity has seemed to descend upon the world — which makes the smugness expressed so quickly today by the critics of India’s 1998 explosions seem, as I have said, quaint.

Is the current Indian debate indicating something about keeping open the possibility of more tests and isn’t this related to the Indo-US civil nuclear deal? It may well be, I do not know. My position for what it is worth has been clear and described in several articles in The Statesman in recent years e.g.

1) Atoms for Peace (or War) (March 5 2006)

“Atoms for Peace” was Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1953 speech to the UN (presided over by Jawaharlal Nehru’s sister) from which arose the IAEA. Eisenhower was the warrior par excellence, having led the Allies to victory over Hitler a few years earlier.

Yet he was the first to see “no sane member of the human race” can discover victory in the “desolation, degradation and destruction” of nuclear war. “Occasional pages of history do record the faces of the ‘great destroyers’, but the whole book of history reveals mankind’s never-ending quest for peace and mankind’s God-given capacity to build.” Speaking of the atomic capacity of America’s communist adversary at the time, he said: “We never have, and never will, propose or suggest that the Soviet Union surrender what rightly belongs to it. We will never say that the peoples of the USSR are an enemy with whom we have no desire ever to deal or mingle in friendly and fruitful relationship.” Rather, “if the fearful trend of atomic military build-up can be reversed, this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind…. if the entire body of the world’s scientists and engineers had adequate amounts of fissionable material… this capability would rapidly be transformed into universal, efficient and economic usage”. Eisenhower’s IAEA would receive contributions from national “stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials”, and also impound, store and protect these and devise “methods whereby this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind.…to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world… to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind.” When Eisenhower visited India he was greeted as the “Prince of Peace” and a vast multitude threw rose petals as he drove by in an open limousine.

Now, half a century later, Dr Manmohan Singh read a speech in Parliament on February 27 relating to our nuclear discussions with America. But it seems unclear even his speech-writers or technical advisers knew how far it was rhetoric and how far grounded in factual realities. There is also tremendous naivete among India’s media anchors and political leaders as to what exactly has been agreed by the Americans on March 2.

Churchill once asked what might have happened if Lloyd George and Clemenceau told Woodrow Wilson: “Is it not true that nothing but your fixed and expiring tenure of office prevents you from being thrown out of power?” The same holds for George W. Bush today. Wilson made many promises to the world that came to be hit for a six by US legislators. In December 2005, Edward Markey (Democrat) and Fred Upton (Republican) promised to scuttle Bush’s agreements with India, and once the pleasant memories of his India visit fade, Bush may quite easily forget most things about us. All the Americans have actually agreed to do is to keep talking.

It needs to be understood that submarine-launched ballistic missiles are the only ultimate military deterrent. Land and air forces are all vulnerable to a massive first-strike. Only submarines lurking silently for long periods in waters near their target, to launch nuclear warheads upon learning their homeland had been hit by the enemy, act as a deterrent preventing that same enemy from making his attack at all. Indeed, the problem becomes how a submarine commander will receive such information and his instructions during such a war. (For India to acquire an ICBM capability beyond the MRBM Agni rockets is to possess an expensive backward technology — as retrograde as the idea India should spend scarce resources sending manned moon missions half a century after it has already been done. The secret is to do something new and beneficial for mankind, not repeat what others did long ago merely to show we can now do it too.) A nuclear-armed submarine needs to be submerged for long periods and also voyage long distances at sea, and hence needs to be nuclear-powered with a miniature version of a civilian nuclear reactor aboard in which, e.g. rods of enriched uranium are bombarded to release enough energy to run hydroelectric turbines to generate power. Patently, no complete separation of the use of atomic power for peace and war may be practically possible. If India creates e.g. its own thorium reactors for civilian power (and we have vast thorium reserves, the nuclear fuel of the future), and then miniaturised these somehow to manufacture reactors for submarines, the use would be both civilian and military. In 1988 the old USSR leased India a nuclear-powered submarine for “training” purposes, and the Americans did not like it at all. In January 2002, Russia’s Naval Chief announced India was paying to build and then lease from 2004 until 2009 two nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarines, and Jaswant Singh reportedly said we were paying $1 thousand crore ($10 bn) for such a defence package. Whether the transaction has happened is not known. Once we have nuclear submarines permanently, that would be more than enough of the minimum deterrent sought.

Indeed, India’s public has been barely informed of civilian nuclear energy policy as well, and an opportunity now exists for a mature national debate to take place — both on what and why the military planning has been and what it costs (and whether any bribes have been paid), and also on the cost, efficiency and safety of the plans for greater civilian use of nuclear energy. Government behaviour after the Bhopal gas tragedy does not inspire confidence about Indian responses to a Three Mile Island/Chernobyl kind of catastrophic meltdown.

That being said, the central question remains why India or anyone else needs to be nuclear-armed at all. With Britain, France or Russia, there is no war though all three are always keen to sell India weapons. Indeed it has been a perennial question why France and Britain need their own deterrents. They have not fought one another for more than 100 years and play rugby instead. If Russia was an enemy, could they not count on America? Or could America itself conceivably become an enemy of Britain and France? America owes her origins to both, and though the Americans did fight the British until the early 1800s, they have never fought the French and love the City of Paris too much ever to do so.

Between China and India, regardless of what happened half a century ago, nuclear or any war other than border skirmishes in sparse barren lands is unlikely. Ever since Sun Yat-sen, China has been going through a complex process of self-discovery and self-definition. An ancient nation where Maoism despoiled the traditional culture and destroyed Tibet, China causes others to fear it because of its inscrutability. But it has not been aggressive in recent decades except with Taiwan. It has threatened nuclear war on America if the Americans stand up for Taiwan, but that is not a quarrel in which India has a cogent role. China (for seemingly commercial reasons) did join hands with Pakistan against India, but there is every indication the Chinese are quite bored with what Pakistan has become. With Pakistan, our situation is well-known, and there has been an implicit equilibrium since Pokhran II finally flushed out their capacity. Had India ever any ambition of using conventional war to knock out and occupy Pakistan as a country? Of course not. We are barely able to govern ourselves, let aside try to rule an ideologically hostile Muslim colony in the NorthWest. Pakistan’s purported reasons for acquiring nuclear bombs are spurious, and cruelly so in view of the abject failures of Pakistan’s domestic political economy. Could Pakistan’s Government use its bombs against India arising from its own self-delusions over J&K? Gohar Ayub Khan in 1998-1999 threatened to do so when he said the next war would be over in two hours with an Indian surrender. He thereby became the exception to Eisenhower’s rule requiring sanity. An India-Pakistan nuclear exchange is, unfortunately, not impossible, leaving J&K as Hell where Jahangir had once described it as Heaven on Earth.

America needs to end her recent jingoism and instead rediscover the legacy of Eisenhower. America can lead everyone in the world today including Russia, China, Israel, Iran and North Korea. But she can do so only by example. America can decommission many of her own nuclear weapons and then lead everyone else to the conference table to do at least some of the same. Like the UN, the IAEA (and its NPT) needs urgent reform itself. It is the right time for serious and new world parleys towards the safe use of atoms for peace and their abolition in war. But are there any Eisenhowers or Churchills to lead them?

2) Our energy interests ( Aug 27-28 2006)

Americans are shrewd and practical people in commercial matters, and expect the same of people they do business with. Caveat emptor, “let the buyer beware”, is the motto they expect those on the other side of the table to be using. Let us not think they are doing us favours in the nuclear deal ~ they are grown-ups looking after their interests and naturally expect we shall look after our own and not expect charity while doing business. Equally, let us not blame the Americans if we find in later years (long after Manmohan Singh and Montek Ahluwalia have exited from India’s stage) that the deal has been implemented in a bad way for our masses of ordinary people.

That said, there is a remarkable disjoint between India’s national energy interests (nuclear interests in particular), and the manner in which the nuclear deal is being perceived and taken to implementation by the two sides. There may be a fundamental gap between the genuine positive benefits the Government of India says the deal contains, and the motivations American businessmen and through them Indian businessmen have had for lobbying American and Indian politicians to support it. An atmosphere of being at cross-purposes has been created, where for example Manmohan Singh is giving answers to questions different from the questions we may want to be asking Montek Ahluwalia. The fundamental gap between what is being said by our Government and what may be intended by the businessmen is something anyone can grasp, though first we shall need some elementary facts.

In 2004, the International Energy Agency estimated the new energy capacity required by rising economic growth in 2020 will derive 1400 GW from burning coal (half of it in China and India), 470 GW from burning oil, 430GW from hydro, and 400 GW from renewable sources like solar or wind power. Because gas prices are expected to remain low worldwide, construction of new nuclear reactors for electricity will be unprofitable. By 2030, new energy expected to be required worldwide is 4700GW, of which only 150GW is expected from new nuclear plants, which will be in any case replacing existing plants due to be retired. Rational choice between different energy sources depends on costs determined by history and geography. Out of some 441 civilian reactors worldwide, France has 59 and these generate 78 per cent of its electricity, the rest coming from hydro. Japan has 54 reactors, generating 34% of its electricity from them. The USA has 104 reactors but generates only 20 per cent of its electricity from them, given its vast alternative sources of power like hydro. In India as of 2003, installed power generating capacity was 107,533.3MW, of which 71 per cent came from burning fuels. Among India’s energy sources, the largest growth-potential is hydroelectric, which does not involve burning fuels ~ gravity moves water from the mountains to the oceans, and this force is harnessed for generation. Our hydro potential, mostly in the North and North-East, is some 150,000MW but our total installed hydro capacity with utilities was only 26,910MW (about 18 per cent of potential). Our 14 civilian nuclear reactors produced merely 4 per cent or less of the electricity being consumed in the country. Those 14 plants will come under “international safeguards” by 2014 under the nuclear deal.

It is extremely likely the international restrictions our existing nuclear plants have been under since the 1970s have hindered if not crippled their functioning and efficiency. At the same time, the restrictions may have caused us to be innovative too. Nuclear power arises from fission of radioactive uranium, plutonium or thorium. India has some 8 million tonnes of monazite deposits along the seacoast of which half may be mined, to yield 225,000 tonnes of thorium metal; we have one innovatively designed thorium reactor under construction. Almost all nuclear energy worldwide today arises from uranium of which there are practically unlimited reserves. Fission of a uranium atom produces 10 million times the energy produced by combustion of an atom of carbon from coal. Gas and fossil fuels may be cheap and in plentiful supply worldwide for generations to come but potential for cheap nuclear energy seems practically infinite. The uranium in seawater can satisfy mankind’s total electricity needs for 7 million years. There is more energy in the uranium impurity present in coal than can arise from actually burning the coal. There is plenty of uranium in granite. None of these become profitable for centuries because there is so much cheap uranium extractable from conventional ores. Design improvements in reactors will also improve productivity; e.g. “fast breeder” reactors “breed” more fissile material than they use, and may get 100 times as much energy from a kilogram of uranium as existing reactors do. India has about 95,000 tonnes of uranium metal that may be mined to yield about 61,000 tonnes net for power generation. Natural uranium is 99.3 per cent of the U-238 isotope and 0.7 per cent of the radioactive U-235 isotope. Nuclear power generation requires “enriched uranium” or “yellow cake” to be created in which U-235 has been increased from 0.7 per cent to 4 to 5 percent. (Nuclear bombs require highly enriched uranium with more than 90 per cent of U-235.) Yellow cake is broken into small pieces, put in metal rods placed in bundles, which are then bombarded by neutrons causing fission. In a reactor, the energy released turns water into steam, which moves turbines generating electricity. While there is no carbon dioxide “waste” as in burning fossil fuels, the “spent” rods of nuclear fuel and other products constitute grave radioactive waste, almost impossible to dispose of.

The plausible part of the Government of India’s official line on the Indo-US nuclear deal is that removing the international restrictions will ~ through importation of new technologies, inputs, fuel etc ~ improve functioning of our 14 existing civilian plants. That is a good thing. Essentially, the price being paid for that improvement is our willingness to commit that those 14 plants will not be used for military purposes. Fair enough: even if we might become less innovative as a result, the overall efficiency gains as a result of the deal will add something to India’s productivity. However, those purchasing decisions involved in enhancing India’s efficiency gains must be made by the Government’s nuclear scientists on technical grounds of improving the working of our existing nuclear infrastructure.

It is a different animal altogether to be purchasing new nuclear reactors on a turn-key basis from American or any other foreign businessmen in a purported attempt to improve India’s “energy security”. (Lalu Yadav has requested a new reactor for Bihar, plus of course Delhi will want one, etc.) The central question over such massive foreign purchases would no longer be the technical one of using the Indo-US deal to improve efficiency or productivity of our existing nuclear infrastructure. Instead it would become a question of calculating social costs and benefits of our investing in nuclear power relative to other sources like hydroelectric power. Even if all other sources of electricity remained constant, and our civilian nuclear capacity alone was made to grow by 100 per cent under the Manmohan-Montek deal-making, that would mean less than 8% of total Indian electricity produced.

This is where the oddities arise and a disjoint becomes apparent between what the Government of India is saying and what American and Indian businessmen have been doing. A “US-India Business Council” has existed for thirty years in Washington as “the premier business advocacy organization promoting US commercial interests in India.… the voice of the American private sector investing in India”. Before the nuclear or any other deals could be contemplated with American business, the USIBC insisted we pay up for Dabhol contracted by a previous Congress Government. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board ~ or rather, its sovereign guarantor the Government of India ~ duly paid out at least $140-$160 million each to General Electric and Bechtel Corporations in “an amicable settlement” of the Dabhol affair. Afterwards, General Electric’s CEO for India was kind enough to say “India is an important country to GE’s global growth. We look forward to working with our partners, customers, and State and Central Governments in helping India continue to develop into a leading world economy”.

Also, a new “US-India CEO Forum” then came about. For two Governments to sponsor private business via such a Forum was “unprecedented”, as noted by Washington’s press during Manmohan Singh’s visit in July 2005. America’s foreign ministry announced it saying: “Both our governments have agreed that we should create a high-level private sector forum to exchange business community views on key economic priorities…” The American side includes heads of AES Corporation, Cargill Inc., Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Honeywell, McGraw-Hill, Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd, PepsiCo, Visa International and Xerox Corporation. The Indian side includes heads of Tata Group, Apollo Hospitals Group, Bharat Forge Ltd, Biocon India Group, HDFC, ICICI One Source, Infosys, ITC Ltd, Max India Group and Reliance Industries. Presiding over the Indian side has been Montek Ahluwalia, Manmohan’s trusted aide ~ and let it be remembered too that the Ahluwalias were Manmohan’s strongest backers in his failed South Delhi Lok Sabha bid. (Indeed it is not clear if the Ahluwalias have been US or Indian residents in recent years, and if it is the former, the onus is on them to clear any perception of conflict of interest arising in regard to roles regarding the nuclear deal or any other official Indo-US business.)

Also, before the Manmohan visit, the Confederation of Indian Industry registered as an official lobbyist in Washington, and went about spending half a million dollars lobbying American politicians for the nuclear deal. After the Manmohan visit, the US Foreign Commercial Service reportedly said American engineering firms, equipment suppliers and contractors faced a $1,000 billion (1 bn =100 crore) opportunity in India. Before President Bush’s visit to India in March 2006, Manmohan Singh signed vast purchases of commercial aircraft from Boeing and Airbus, as well as large weapons’ deals with France and Russia. After the Bush visit, the US Chamber of Commerce said the nuclear deal can cause $100 billion worth of new American business in India’s energy-sector alone. What is going on?

Finally, the main aspect of Manmohan Singh’s address to America’s legislature had to do with agreeing with President Bush “to enhance Indo-US cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear technology”. What precisely does this mean? If it means the Indo-US nuclear deal will help India improve or maintain its existing nuclear infrastructure, well and good. There may be legitimate business for American and other foreign companies in that cause, which also helps India make the efficiency and productivity gains mentioned. Or has the real motivation for the American businessmen driving the deal (with the help of the “CEO Forum” etc) been to sell India nuclear reactors on a turn-key basis (in collaboration with private Indian businessmen) at a time when building new nuclear reactors is unprofitable elsewhere in the world because of low gas prices? India’s citizens may demand to know from the Government whether the Manmohan-Montek deal-making is going to cause importation of new nuclear reactors, and if so, why such an expensive alternative is being considered (relative to e.g. India’s abundant hydroelectric potential) when it will have scant effect in satisfying the country’s energy needs and lead merely to a worsening of our macroeconomic problems. Both Manmohan Singh and Montek Ahluwalia have been already among those to preside over the growth of India’s macroeconomic problems through the 1980s and 1990s.

Lastly, an irrelevant distraction should be gotten out of the way. Are we a “nuclear weapons” state? Of course we are, but does it matter to anything but our vanity? Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev had control over vastly more nuclear weapons and they declared together twenty years ago: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought”, which is how the Cold War started to come to an end. We need to remind ourselves that India and Pakistan are large, populous countries with hundreds of millions of materially poor, ill-informed citizens, weak tax-bases, humongous internal and external public debts (i.e. debt owed by the Government to domestic and foreign creditors), non-investment grade credit- ratings in world financial markets, massive annual fiscal deficits, inconvertible currencies, nationalized banks, and runaway printing of paper-money. Discussing nuclear or other weapon-systems to attack one other with is mostly a pastime of our cowardly, irresponsible and yes, corrupt, elites.

3) Need for Clarity A poorly drafted treaty driven by business motives is a recipe for international misunderstanding (August 19 2007)

Confusion prevails over the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. Businessmen, bureaucrats, politicians, diplomats, scientists and now the public at large have all joined in the cacophony in the last two years. On Wednesday August 15, America’s foreign ministry made the clearest most unequivocal statement possible as to the official American Government interpretation of the Indo-US nuclear deal: “The proposed 123 agreement has provisions in it that in an event of a nuclear test by India, then all nuclear co-operation is terminated, as well as there is provision for return of all materials, including reprocessed material covered by the agreement” (Sean McCormack). Yet our Prime Minister had told Parliament two days earlier: “The agreement does not in any way affect India’s right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary”. What is going on? Our politics are in uproar, and it has been suggested in these pages that the country go to a General Election to allow the people to speak on the matter. Clearly, we need some clarity.

Let us start at the beginning. How did it all originate? The private US nuclear industry prevailed upon India’s government bureaucrats and businessmen over several years that nuclear power is the way forward to solving India’s “infrastructure” problems. They would sell us, in words of the Manmohan-Montek Planning Commission’s energy adviser, “six to eight lightwater reactors” (especially as they may not be able to sell these anywhere else). Our usual prominent self-seeking retired bureaucrats started their waffling about the importance of “infrastructure”.

Then Manmohan Singh felt his foreign travels as PM could be hardly complete without a fife-and-drum visit to the White House. But before he could do so, Dabhol would have to be cleared up since American business in India was on a self-moratorium until GE and Bechtel were paid settlements of some $140-160 million each by the Governments of India and Maharashtra. GE’s CEO for India kindly said afterwards “India is an important country to GE’s global growth. We look forward to working with our partners, customers, and State and Central Governments in helping India continue to develop into a leading world economy”.

Also, before Manmohan’s USA trip, the Confederation of Indian Industry registered as an official Washington lobbyist and spent half a million dollars lobbying American politicians for the deal. (”Why?” would be a good question.)

So Dr Singh was able to make his White House visit, accompanied by US business lobbies saying the nuclear deal can generate $100 billion worth of new American business in India’s energy-sector alone. It is only when business has lubricated politics in America that so much agreement about the India-deal could arise. The “bottom-line” is that six to eight reactors must be sold to India, whatever politics and diplomacy it takes.

Now Dr Singh is not a PM who is a Member of the Lower House of Parliament commanding its confidence. He says his Government constitutes the Executive and can sign treaties on India’s behalf. This is unwise. If he signs a treaty and then the Congress Party loses the next General Election, a new Executive Government can use his same words to rescind the same treaty. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. One reason we are so confused is that India has not signed very many bilateral treaties, and there is barely a noted specialist in international law anywhere in the country. Dr Singh’s original mentor, PN Haksar, had gone about getting a treaty signed with the USSR back in 1971 which tided us over a war, though the USSR itself collapsed before that treaty ended.

Signing a treaty is much more than signing an international MOU. It requires a national consensus or a least a wide and deep understanding on the part of the public and the political class as to what necessitates the treaty. That plainly does not exist at present. Most people in India do not even know how nuclear power is generated, nor how small and insignificant nuclear power has been in India.

Natural uranium is 99.3 per cent of the U-238 isotope and 0.7 per cent the radioactive U-235 isotope. Nuclear power generation requires “enriched uranium” or “yellow cake” to be created in which U-235 has been increased from 0.7 per cent to 4 to 5 percent. (Nuclear bombs require “highly enriched” uranium with more than 90 per cent of U-235.) Yellow cake is broken into small pieces, put in metal rods placed in bundles, which are then bombarded by neutrons causing fission. In a reactor, the energy released turns water into steam, which moves turbines generating electricity. While there is no carbon dioxide “waste” as in burning fossil fuels, the “spent” rods of nuclear fuel and other products constitute grave radioactive waste, almost impossible to dispose of.

India’s 14 “civilian” nuclear reactors presently produce less than 4% of our total power. 70% of our power arises from burning fossil fuels, mainly coal. Much of the rest arises from hydro. We have vast hydroelectric potential in the North and Northeast but it would take a lot of serious political, administrative and civil engineering effort to organise all that, and there would not be any nice visits to Washington or Paris involved for politicians and bureaucrats.

Simple arithmetic says that even if all our principal energy sources stayed constant and only our tiny nuclear power sector grew by 100%, that would still hardly increase by very much our energy output overall. Placing a couple of expensive modern lightwater reactors around Delhi, a couple around Mumbai and a few other metros will, however, butter already buttered bread quite nicely and keep all those lifts and ACs running.

The agreed text of the “treaty” looks, from a legal standpoint, quite sloppily and hurriedly written ~ almost as if each side has cut and paste its own preferred terms in different places with a nod to the other side. For example, there is mention of “WMD” initially which is repeated as “weapons of mass destruction” just a little later. There is solemn mention of the “Government of India” and “Government of the United States of America” as the “Parties”, but this suddenly becomes merely “United States” and “India” in the middle and then reverts again to the formal usage.

Through the sloppiness comes scope for different interpretations. The Americans have said: try not to test, you don’t need to, we don’t test any more, and you have to know that if you do test, this deal is over, in fact it gets reversed. We have said, okay, we won’t test, and if we do test we know it is over with you but that does not mean it is over with others. Given such sloppy diplomacy and treaty-making, the scope for mutual misunderstanding, even war, remains immense long after all the public Indian moneys have found their way into private pockets worldwide. Will a future President Jeb Bush or Chelsea Clinton send F-22 bombers to bomb India’s nuclear facilities because India has carried out a test yet declined to return American equipment? Riding a tiger is not something generally to be recommended.

The answer to our present conundrum must be patience and the fullest transparency. What is the rush? If it is good or bad for us to buy six or eight new American reactors now, it will remain good or bad to do so a year or two from now after everyone has had a thorough think about everything that is involved. What the Manmohan-Montek Planning Commission needed to do first of all was a thorough cost-benefit analysis of India’s energy requirements but such elementary professionalism has been sorely lacking among our economists for decades.”

Subroto Roy

Democracy Database for the Largest Electorate Ever Seen in World History

April 12, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

In four days, on April 16 2009, one thousand seven hundred and seven officially recognized candidates, representing 161 political parties and including 770 Independents, are contesting the polls in 124 constituencies (out of a total of 543 constituencies), across 15 States and two Union Territories in Phase 1 of the General Election to India’s 15th Lok Sabha. Between 16 April and 7 May in Phases 2, 3 and 4, that number of candidates contesting India’s General Elections rises to at least 4,637, average age 46.1, from 261 political parties, including 291 women and 2118 Independents across more than 150 further constituencies. By 13 May, Phase 5 will be over and all 543 constituencies shall have been covered. The size of the registered electorate of potential voters under adult franchise is 383,566,479, the largest in human history.

Did you know that? Of course not. None of our juvenile TV stations and only-slightly-less-juvenile newspapers would have been able to give you such numbers even if they had tried to; they would barely know where to begin. Besides, our Election Commission too has become a sclerotic bureaucracy like everything else to do with India’s governance; its website — now updated and improving slightly every day — provides a lot of irrelevancies along with providing the very least modicum of raw data logically necessary for the conduct of the election.

Ten years ago, just prior to the 13th Lok Sabha Elections, I, as part of my academic research as a “full professor” at an “Institution of National Importance”, created an Excel spreadsheet containing every single Lok Sabha constituency at the time. I later sent it on to the EC for its free use and distribution. (Some of my academic colleagues were surprised and suspicious as one of their principal goals in life was to obtain lucrative government “consulting” contracts wherever possible — doing things for free set a worrisome example despite the slogan of being supposedly “dedicated to the service of the nation”!). Nothing happened because the EC in particular and the Government of India in general did not then and have not now appeared keen to know how to use spreadsheets like Excel properly, despite our claims of India being an information-technology powerhouse!

I have now had to re-create that 1999 spreadsheet again for the 15th Lok Sabha Elections because there has been a major parliamentary exercise of what is called “redistricting” in some countries and “delimitation” here in India. Many constituencies have been merged or have disappeared while new ones have appeared. Plus numerous innovative techniques and formulae have had to be used by me with vital free help from Excel Forum users as well as providers of free add-ins around the world, to whom grateful acknowledgment is made.

The processed data below is based entirely on the raw data available from the EC as of April 11 2009. As the EC updates its raw data, so shall I seek to update this processed data. There are definite errors in the EC data (e.g. one Independent candidate has been listed 3 times, while 19 people have been listed as being99 years old; more significantly there seems to be at least one constituency in which there is only one candidate, etc etc.) Whatever errors exist in the raw data must be carried over to these data here, I am afraid. But I will as I have said update this as the EC updates its raw data. If there are errors in my processing, I do not know of them, so please check and recheck against the EC’s data if you wish to use these data operationally. [Update 1800 hours Sunday April 12: the EC has reduced the number of candidates from 4637 to 4631 which presumably means some obvious slight errors have been corrected; it is still far short of having announced all candidates for all 543 constituencies, so the overall number is destined to rise and drastically quite soon — I hope before the first polls open on Thursday!].

The first two indicators are the EC’s way of identifying a constituency; then there is the name of the State or Union Territory in a two-digit code followed by the name of the constituency in capitals, the date that polling is due to take place, and the list of the candidates and their parties. I have made every effort to see no error has been added by me in addition to any errors that might exist in the EC’s data. But please check and double check yourself, and I cannot take responsibility for the accuracy of the information, especially as it is being done in “real time”.

This is being provided as a free public service for India’s ordinary people, citizens, candidates, students, observers etc. Any broadcast or republication or academic use must acknowledge it appeared first at this site in my work: just link to this post or quote “Democracy Database for the Largest Electorate Ever Seen in World History by Dr Subroto Roy”, and use away.

Why do I think it is important for every candidate in every constituency in India’s 2009 General Elections to have his/her name known and to receive due respect and a small salute in HTML even for a brief moment?

Because that is what democracy in a free republic is supposed to be about. India is not a monarchy or a mansabdari of some sort, no matter what the many corrupt people inhabiting our Government and our capital cities might have made themselves believe.

Our juvenile, sensationalist, irresponsible Delhi-centred media might realize someday that there are thousands of real people all over this country that is India contesting these elections seriously and trying to thus participate in the political process as best they can. The Delhi-centred media remain focused on the few dozen fake celebrities that they flatter, cultivate and pander to. (We must wait to see what depths of journalistic depravity our TV stations reach in covering the so-called IPL in South Africa more seriously than they cover India’s 2009 General Elections! What would MK Gandhi, who, a century ago, was still in South Africa, have said about such a twist of India’s fate?)

Here instead are India’s names and India’s lives and India’s places and India’s peoples and India’s political parties for all of us to see and understand and hence see and understand ourselves better.

Here’s a cheer to all those party-political symbols for or against which India’s hundreds of millions of voters will make their decisions:

A lady farmer carrying paddy on her head,

Aeroplane,

Almirah

Arrow

Axe

Balloon

Banana

Basket

Bat

Batsman

Battery Torch

Bead Necklace

Bell

Bicycle

Black Board

Boat

Book

Bow & Arrow

Boy & Girl

Bread

Brick

Bridge

Brief Case

Brush

Bungalow

Bus

Cake

Camera

Candles

Car

Carrot

Cart

Ceiling Fan

Chair

Clock

Coat

Cock

Coconut

Comb

Conch

Cot

Cup & Saucer

Diesel Pump

Dolli

Drum

Ears of Corn And Sickle

Electric Pole

Elephant

Flag with Three Stars

Flowers and Grass

Fork

Frock

Frying Pan

Gas Cylinder

Gas Stove

Glass Tumbler

Haldhar Within Wheel (Chakra Haldhar)

Hammer, Sickle and Star

Hand

Hand Pump

Harmonium

Hat

Hurricane Lamp

Hut

Ice Cream

Ink Pot & Pen

Iron

Jug

Kettle

Kite

Ladder

Lady Purse

Letter Box

Lion

Lock and Key

Lotus

Maize

Nagara

Not Alloted

Pressure Cooker

Railway Engine

Ring

Rising Sun

Road Roller

Saw

Scissors

Sewing Machine

Shuttle

Slate

Spade & Stoker

Spoon

Stool

Table

Table Lamp

Television

Tent

Two Daos Intersecting

Two Leaves

Violin

Walking Stick

Whistle….

Here’s a cheer then to all the thousands of candidates, average age 46.1, including those Independents, and the hundreds of political parties who go to the contest beginning April 16:

Aadivasi Sena Party

A-Chik National Congress(Democratic)

Adarsh Lok Dal

Advait Ishwasyam Congress

Ajeya Bharat Party

AJSU Party

Akhand Bharti

Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

Akhil Bharatiya Ashok Sena

Akhil Bharatiya Congress Dal (Ambedkar)

Akhil Bharatiya Hind Kranti Party

Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal

Akhil Bhartiya Manavata Paksha

Akhil Bhartiya Sindhu Samajwadi Party

Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)

All India Forward Bloc

All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen

All India Minorities Front

All India Trinamool Congress

All Jharkhand Students Union

Alpjan Samaj Party

Ambedkar National Congress

Ambedkar Samaj Party

Ambedkarist Republican Party

Amra Bangalee

Apna Dal

Arunachal Congress

Asom Gana Parishad

Assam United Democratic Front

Autonomous State Demand Committee

Awami Party

B. C. United Front

Backward Classes Democratic Party, J&K

Bahujan Republican Ekta Manch

Bahujan Samaj Party

Bahujan Samaj Party(Ambedkar-Phule)

Bahujan Sangharsh Party (Kanshiram)

Bahujan Shakty

Bahujan Uday Manch

Bajjikanchal Vikas Party

Bharat Punarnirman Dal

Bharat Vikas Morcha

Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party

Bharatiya Bahujan Party

Bharatiya Eklavya Party

Bharatiya Grameen Dal

Bharatiya Jagaran Party

Bharatiya Jan Berojgar Chhatra Dal

Bharatiya Jan Shakti

Bharatiya Janata Party

Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal

Bharatiya Lok Kalyan Dal

Bharatiya Loktantrik Party(Gandhi-Lohiawadi)

Bharatiya Minorities Suraksha Mahasangh

Bharatiya Momin Front

Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal

Bharatiya Peoples Party

Bharatiya Pichhra Dal

Bharatiya Praja Paksha

Bharatiya Rashtriya Bahujan Samaj Vikas Party

Bharatiya Republican Paksha

Bharatiya Sadbhawna Samaj Party

Bharatiya Samaj Dal

Bharatiya Samta Samaj Party

Bharatiya Sarvodaya Kranti Party

Bharatiya Subhash Sena

Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

Biju Janata Dal

Bira Oriya Party

Bodaland Peoples Front

Buddhiviveki Vikas Party

Chandigarh Vikas Party

Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party

Communist Party of India

Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

Democratic Party of India

Democratic Secular Party

Dharam Nirpeksh Dal

Duggar Pradesh Party

Eklavya Samaj Party

Gondvana Gantantra Party

Gondwana Mukti Sena

Great India Party

Hill State People’s Democratic Party

Hindustan Janta Party

Indian Christian Secular Party

Indian Justice Party

Indian National Congress

Indian Peace Party

Indian Peoples Forward Block

Indian Union Muslim League

Jaganmay Nari Sangathan

Jago Party

Jai Bharat Samanta Party

Jai Chhattisgarh Party

Jai Vijaya Bharathi Party

Jammu & Kashmir National Panthers Party

Jammu & Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party

Jan Samanta Party

Jan Surajya Shakti

Jana Hitkari Party

Janata Dal (Secular)

Janata Dal (United)

Janata Party

Janvadi Party(Socialist)

Jawan Kisan Morcha

Jharkhand Disom Party

Jharkhand Jan Morcha

Jharkhand Janadikhar Manch

Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

Jharkhand Party

Jharkhand Party (Naren)

Jharkhand PeopleÂ’S Party

Jharkhand Vikas Dal

Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

Kalinga Sena

Kamtapur Progressive Party

Kannada Chalavali Vatal Paksha

Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangha

Karnataka Thamizhar Munnetra Kazhagam

Kerala Congress

Kerala Congress (M)

Kosal Kranti Dal

Kosi Vikas Party

Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

Krantikari Samyavadi Party

Krantisena Maharashtra

Laghujan Samaj Vikas Party

Lal Morcha

Lok Bharati

Lok Dal

Lok Jan Shakti Party

Lok Jan Vikas Morcha

Lok Satta Party

Lok Vikas Party

Lokpriya Samaj Party

Loksangram

Loktanrik Sarkar Party

Loktantrik Samajwadi Party

Loktantrik Samata Dal

Mahagujarat Janta Party

Maharashtra Navnirman sena

Maharashtrawadi Gomantak

Mahila Adhikar Party

Mana Party

Manav Mukti Morcha

Manipur People’s Party

Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)

Marxist Co-Ordination

Maulik Adhikar Party

Meghalaya Democratic Party

Moderate Party

Momin Conference

Muslim League Kerala State Committee

Muslim Majlis Uttar Pradesh

Nagaland Peoples Front

National Development Party

National Lokhind Party

National Loktantrik Party

National Secular Party

National Youth Party

Nationalist Congress Party

Navbharat Nirman Party

Nelopa(United)

Orissa Mukti Morcha

Party for Democratic Socialism

Paschim Banga Rajya Muslim League

Peace Party

Peoples Democratic Alliance

Peoples Democratic Forum

People’s Democratic Front

Peoples Guardian

People’s Party of Arunachal

Peoples Republican Party

Prabuddha Republican Party

Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party

Praja Bharath Party

Praja Rajyam Party

Prajatantrik Samadhan Party

Proutist Sarva Samaj

Proutist Sarva Samaj Party

Purvanchal Rajya Banao Dal

Pyramid Party of India

Rajyadhikara Party

Rashtra Sewa Dal

Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

Rashtravadi Communist Party

Rashtravadi Janata Party

Rashtrawadi Sena

Rashtriya Agraniye Dal

Rashtriya Bahujan Congress Party

Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

Rashtriya Gondvana Party

Rashtriya Janata Dal

Rashtriya Jan-Jagram Morcha

Rashtriya Jan-vadi Party (Krantikari)

Rashtriya Kranti Party

Rashtriya Krantikari Janata Party

Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

Rashtriya Lok Dal

Rashtriya Lokhit Party

Rashtriya Lokwadi Party

Rashtriya Machhua Samaj Party

Rashtriya Mazdoor Ekta Party

Rashtriya Pragati Party

Rashtriya Praja Congress (Secular)

Rashtriya Raksha Dal

Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (United)

Rashtriya Samanta Dal

Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

Rayalaseema Rashtra Samithi

Republican Paksha (Khoripa)

Republican Party of India

Republican Party of India (A)

Republican Party of India (Democratic )

Republican Party of India (Khobragade)

Republican Presidium Party of India

Republician Party of India Ektawadi

Revolutionary Communist Party of India (Rasik Bhatt)

Revolutionary Socialist Party

Samajik Jantantrik Party

Samajtantric Party of India

Samajwadi Jan Parishad

Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

Samajwadi Party

Samata Party

Samruddha Odisha

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Party

Sarvodaya Karnataka Paksha

Sarvodaya Party

Savarn Samaj Party

Save Goa Front

Shakti Sena (Bharat Desh)

Shivrajya Party

Shivsena

Shoshit Samaj Dal

Socialist Party (Lohia)

Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

Sunder Samaj Party

Swabhimani Paksha

Swarajya Party Of India

Swatantra Bharat Paksha

Telangana Rashtra Samithi

Telugu Desam

The Humanist Party of India

Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

United Communist Party of India

United Democratic Party

United Goans Democratic Party

United Women Front

Uttar Pradesh Republican Party

Vanchit Jamat Party

Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katch

Vikas Party

Vishva Hindustani Sangathan

Yuva Vikas Party … and many many more….

S01 1 AP ADILABAD 16-Apr-09 1 ADE TUKARAM M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 KOTNAK RAMESH M 39 Indian National Congress

3 RATHOD RAMESH M 43 Telugu Desam

4 RATHOD SADASHIV NAIK M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 MESRAM NAGO RAO M 59 Praja Rajyam Party

6 ATHRAM LAXMAN RAO M 47 Independent

7 GANTA PENTANNA M 36 Independent

8 NETHAVAT RAMDAS M 39 Independent

9 BANKA SAHADEVU M 55 Independent

S01 2 AP PEDDAPALLE 16-Apr-09 1 GAJJELA SWAMY M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 GOMASA SRINIVAS M 41 Telangana Rashtra Samithi

3 MATHANGI NARSIAH M 64 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 DR.G.VIVEKANAND M 51 Indian National Congress

5 AREPELLI DAVID RAJU M 36 Praja Rajyam Party

6 KRISHNA SABBALI M 39 Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)

7 AMBALA MAHENDAR M 38 Independent

8 A. KAMALAMMA F 36 Independent

9 GORRE RAMESH M 42 Independent

10 NALLALA KANUKAIAH M 39 Independent

11 B. MALLAIAH M 32 Independent

12 K. RAJASWARI F 38 Independent

13 D. RAMULU M 51 Independent

14 G.VINAY KUMAR M 51 Independent

15 S.LAXMAIAH M 33 Independent

S01 3 AP KARIMNAGAR 16-Apr-09 1 CHANDUPATLA JANGA REDDY M 75 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 PONNAM PRABHAKAR M 41 Indian National Congress

3 VINOD KUMAR BOINAPALLY M 49 Telangana Rashtra Samithi

4 VIRESHAM NALIMELA M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 RAGULA RAMULU M 40 Republican Party of India (A)

6 LINGAMPALLI SRINIVAS REDDY M 39 Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)

7 VELICHALA RAJENDER RAO M 46 Praja Rajyam Party

8 T. SRIMANNARAYANA M 68 Pyramid Party of India

9 K. PRABHAKAR M 43 Independent

10 KORIVI VENUGOPAL M 46 Independent

11 BARIGE GATTAIAH YADAV M 32 Independent

12 GADDAM RAJI REDDY M 48 Independent

13 PANAKANTI SATISH KUMAR M 46 Independent

14 PEDDI RAVINDER M 29 Independent

15 B. SURESH M 32 Independent

S01 4 AP NIZAMABAD 16-Apr-09 1 DR. BAPU REDDY M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 BIGALA GANESH GUPTA M 39 Telangana Rashtra Samithi

3 MADHU YASKHI GOUD M 50 Indian National Congress

4 YEDLA RAMU M 53 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 DUDDEMPUDI SAMBASIVA RAO CHOUDARY M 62 Lok Satta Party

6 P.VINAY KUMAR M 51 Praja Rajyam Party

7 DR. V.SATHYANARAYANA MURTHY M 51 Pyramid Party of India

8 S. SUJATHA F 43 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

9 AARIS MOHAMMED M 46 Independent

10 KANDEM PRABHAKAR M 44 Independent

11 GADDAM SRINIVAS M 47 Independent

12 RAPELLY SRINIVAS M 34 Independent

S01 5 AP ZAHIRABAD 16-Apr-09 1 CHENGAL BAGANNA M 66 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 M.VISHNU MUDIRAJ M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 SYED YOUSUF ALI M 54 Telangana Rashtra Samithi

4 SURESH KUMAR SHETKAR M 46 Indian National Congress

5 BENJAMIN RAJU M 39 Indian Justice Party

6 MALKAPURAM SHIVA KUMAR M 43 Praja Rajyam Party

7 MALLESH RAVINDER REDDY M 39 Lok Satta Party

8 CHITTA RAJESHWAR RAO M 45 Independent

9 POWAR SINGH HATTI SINGH M 36 Independent

10 BASAVA RAJ PATIL M 39 Independent

S01 6 AP MEDAK 16-Apr-09 1 NARENDRANATH .C M 45 Indian National Congress

2 P. NIROOP REDDY M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 VIJAYA SHANTHI .M F 43 Telangana Rashtra Samithi

4 Y. SHANKAR GOUD M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 KOVURI PRABHAKAR M 51 Pyramid Party of India

6 KHAJA QUAYUM ANWAR M 43 Praja Rajyam Party

7 D. YADESHWAR M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party(Ambedkar-Phule)

8 K. SUDHEER REDDY M 37 Lok Satta Party

9 KUNDETI RAVI M 32 Independent

S01 7 AP MALKAJGIRI 16-Apr-09 1 NALLU INDRASENA REDDY M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 M.BABU RAO PADMA SALE M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 BHEEMSEN.T M 60 Telugu Desam

4 SARVEY SATYANARAYANA M 54 Indian National Congress

5 S.D.KRISHNA MURTHY M 51 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

6 T.DEVENDER GOUD M 56 Praja Rajyam Party

7 NARENDER KUMBALA M 39 Bharat Punarnirman Dal

8 PRATHANI RAMAKRISHNA M 42 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

9 LION C FRANCIS MJF M 56 Samajwadi Party

10 N V RAMA REDDY M 54 Pyramid Party of India

11 DR.LAVU RATHAIAH M 56 Lok Satta Party

12 KANTE KANAKAIAH GANGAPUTHRA M 63 Independent

13 KOYAL KAR BHOJARAJ M 35 Independent

14 CHENURU VENKATA SUBBA RAO M 52 Independent

15 JAJULA BHASKAR M 34 Independent

16 LT.COL. (RETD). DUSERLA PAPARAIDU M 62 Independent

17 MD.MANSOORALI M 31 Independent

18 S.VICTOR M 40 Independent

19 K.SRINIVASA RAJU M 44 Independent

S01 8 AP SECUNDRABAD 16-Apr-09 1 ANJAN KUMAR YADAV M M 47 Indian National Congress

2 BANDARU DATTATREYA M 61 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 M. D. MAHMOOD ALI M 55 Telangana Rashtra Samithi

4 M. VENKATESH M 32 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 SRINIVASA SUDHISH RAMBHOTLA M 40 Telugu Desam

6 ABDUS SATTAR MUJAHED M 41 Muslim League Kerala State Committee

7 IMDAD JAH M 64 Ambedkar National Congress

8 P. DAMODER REDDY M 48 Pyramid Party of India

9 DR. DASOJU SRAVAN KUMAR M 41 Praja Rajyam Party

10 S. DEVAIAH M 59 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

11 C.V.L. NARASIMHA RAO M 51 Lok Satta Party

12 DR .POLISHETTY RAM MOHAN M 57 Samata Party

13 MOHD. OSMAN QURESHEE M 35 Ajeya Bharat Party

14 SHIRAZ KHAN F 39 United Women Front

15 ASEERVADAM LELLAPALLI M 51 Independent

16 AMBATI KRISHNA MURTHY M 50 Independent

17 B. GOPALA KRISHNA M 42 Independent

18 DEVI DAS RAO GHODKE M 63 Independent

19 BABER ALI KHAN M 51 Independent

20 M. BHAGYA MATHA F 38 Independent

21 CH. MURAHARI M 49 Independent

22 G. RAJAIAH M 48 Independent

23 K. SRINIVASA CHARI M 49 Independent

S01 9 AP HYDERABAD 16-Apr-09 1 ZAHID ALI KHAN M 66 Telugu Desam

2 P. LAXMAN RAO GOUD M 55 Indian National Congress

3 SATISH AGARWAL M 38 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 SAMY MOHAMMED M 29 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 ASADUDDIN OWAISI M 41 All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen

6 S. GOPAL SINGH M 34 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

7 TAHER KAMAL KHUNDMIRI M 52 Janata Dal (Secular)

8 FATIMA .A F 41 Praja Rajyam Party

9 P. VENKATESWARA RAO M 58 Pyramid Party of India

10 D. SURENDER M 36 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

11 AL-KASARY MOULLIM MOHSIN HUSSAIN M 33 Independent

12 ALTAF AHMED KHAN M 43 Independent

13 M.A. QUDDUS GHORI M 43 Independent

14 ZAHID ALI KHAN M 26 Independent

15 M.A. BASITH M 55 Independent

16 MD. OSMAN M 43 Independent

17 B. RAVI YADAV M 33 Independent

18 N.L. SRINIVAS M 31 Independent

19 M.A. SATTAR M 29 Independent

20 D. SADANAND M 45 Independent

21 SYED ABDUL GAFFTER M 51 Independent

22 SARDAR SINGH M 62 Independent

23 M.A. HABEEB M 31 Independent

S01 10 AP CHELVELLA 16-Apr-09 1 JAIPAL REDDY SUDINI M 67 Indian National Congress

2 A.P.JITHENDER REDDY M 54 Telugu Desam

3 BADDAM BAL REDDY M 64 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 C.SRINIVAS RAO M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 KASANI GNANESHWAR M 54 Mana Party

6 KUMMARI GIRI M 28 Pyramid Party of India

7 DASARA SARALA DEVI F 39 Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)

8 DR.B.RAGHUVEER REDDY M 42 Lok Satta Party

9 SAMA SRINIVASULU M 34 Great India Party

10 S.MALLA REDDY M 43 Independent

11 G.MALLESHAM GOUD M 32 Independent

12 RAMESHWARAM JANGAIAH M 58 Independent

13 LAXMINARAYANA M 27 Independent

14 VENKATRAM NAIK M 27 Independent

15 SAYAMOOLA NARSIMULU M 30 Independent

S01 11 AP MAHBUBNAGAR 16-Apr-09 1 KUCHAKULLA YADAGIRI REDDY M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 K. CHANDRASEKHAR RAO M 55 Telangana Rashtra Samithi

3 DEVARAKONDA VITTAL RAO M 57 Indian National Congress

4 PALEM SUDARSHAN GOUD M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 ABDUL KAREEM KHAJA MOHAMMAD M 50 Lok Satta Party

6 ASIRVADAM M 35 Great India Party

7 KOLLA VENKATESH MADIGA M 37 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

8 GUNDALA VIJAYALAKSHMI F 61 Pyramid Party of India

9 B. BALRAJ GOUD M 44 Mana Party

10 MUNISWAMY.C.R M 32 Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

11 USHAN SATHYAMMA F 32 Independent

12 USAIN RANGAMMA F 50 Independent

13 YETTI CHINNA YENKAIAH M 47 Independent

14 YETTI LINGAIAH M 52 Independent

15 KANDUR KURMAIAH M 56 Independent

16 KARRE JANGAIAH M 29 Independent

17 GANGAPURI RAVINDAR GOUD M 28 Independent

18 GAJJA NARSIMULU M 35 Independent

19 CHENNAMSETTY DASHARATHA RAMULU HOLEA DASARI M 31 Independent

20 M.A. JABBAR M 39 Independent

21 DEPALLY MAISAIAH M 27 Independent

22 DEPALLY SAYANNA M 47 Independent

23 K. NARSIMULU M 52 Independent

24 NAGENDER REDDY. K M 49 Independent

25 PANDU M 29 Independent

26 BUDIGA JANGAM LAXMAMMA F 30 Independent

27 MOHAMMAD GHOUSE MOINUDDIN M 76 Independent

28 MALA JANGILAMMA F 50 Independent

29 RAJESH NAIK M 29 Independent

30 RAIKANTI RAMADAS MADIGA M 40 Independent

31 V. VENKATESHWARLU M 32 Independent

32 B. SEENAIAH GOUD M 62 Independent

S01 12 AP NAGARKURNOOL 16-Apr-09 1 GUVVALA BALARAJU M 31 Telangana Rashtra Samithi

2 TANGIRALA PARAMJOTHI M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 DR. MANDA JAGANNATH M 57 Indian National Congress

4 DR. T. RATNAKARA M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 DEVANI SATYANARAYANA M 39 Praja Rajyam Party

6 S.P.FERRY ROY M 27 Pyramid Party of India

7 G. VIDYASAGAR M 60 Lok Satta Party

8 ANAPOSALA VENKATESH M 27 Independent

9 N. KURUMAIAH M 27 Independent

10 BUDDULA SRINIVAS M 35 Independent

11 A.V. SHIVA KUMAR M 42 Independent

12 SIRIGIRI MANNEM M 36 Independent

13 HANUMANTHU M 28 Independent

S01 13 AP NALGONDA 16-Apr-09 1 GUTHA SUKENDER REDDY M 55 Indian National Congress

2 NAZEERUDDIN M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 VEDIRE SRIRAM REDDY M 39 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 SURAVARAM SUDHAKAR REDDY M 67 Communist Party of India

5 A. NAGESHWAR RAO M 59 Pyramid Party of India

6 PADURI KARUNA F 58 Praja Rajyam Party

7 DAIDA LINGAIAH M 51 Independent

8 MD. NAZEEMUDDIN M 40 Independent

9 BOLUSANI KRISHNAIAH M 45 Independent

10 BOLLA KARUNAKAR M 33 Independent

11 MARRY NEHEMIAH M 55 Independent

12 YALAGANDULA RAMU M 41 Independent

13 K.V.SRINIVASA CHARYULU M 30 Independent

14 SHAIK AHMED M 57 Independent

S01 14 AP BHONGIR 16-Apr-09 1 KOMATIREDDY RAJ GOPAL REDDY M 41 Indian National Congress

2 CHINTHA SAMBA MURTHY M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 NOMULA NARSIMHAIAH M 49 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

4 SIDDHARTHA PHOOLEY M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 CHANDRA MOULI GANDAM M 48 Praja Rajyam Party

6 PALLA PRABHAKAR REDDY M 64 Pyramid Party of India

7 RACHA SUBHADRA REDDY F 59 Lok Satta Party

8 GUMMI BAKKA REDDY M 75 Independent

9 POOSA BALA KISHAN BESTA M 35 Independent

10 PERUKA ANJAIAH M 46 Independent

11 MAMIDIGALLA JOHN BABU M 40 Independent

12 MEDI NARSIMHA M 31 Independent

13 RUPANI RAMESH VADDERA M 31 Independent

14 SANGU MALLAYYA M 66 Independent

15 SIRUPANGI RAMULU M 55 Independent

S01 15 AP WARANGAL 16-Apr-09 1 JAYAPAL. V M 63 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 DOMMATI SAMBAIAH M 45 Telugu Desam

3 RAJAIAH SIRICILLA M 55 Indian National Congress

4 RAMAGALLA PARAMESHWAR M 55 Telangana Rashtra Samithi

5 LALAIAH P M 65 Bahujan Samaj Party

6 ONTELA MONDAIAH M 58 Pyramid Party of India

7 DR. CHANDRAGIRI RAJAMOULY M 49 Praja Rajyam Party

8 BALLEPU VENKAT NARSINGA RAO M 37 Lok Satta Party

9 KANNAM VENKANNA M 32 Independent

10 KRISHNADHI SRILATHA F 33 Independent

11 SOMAIAH GANAPURAM M 39 Independent

12 DAMERA MOGILI M 34 Independent

13 DUBASI NARSING M 46 Independent

14 PAKALA DEVADANAM M 74 Independent

15 D. SREEDHAR RAO M 37 Independent

S01 16 AP MAHABUBABAD 16-Apr-09 1 KUNJA SRINIVASA RAO M 31 Communist Party of India

2 GUMMADI PULLAIAH M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 B. DILIP M 35 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 P. BALRAM M 45 Indian National Congress

5 D.T. NAIK M 61 Praja Rajyam Party

6 PODEM SAMMAIAH M 31 Pyramid Party of India

7 BANOTH MOLCHAND M 60 Lok Satta Party

8 KALTHI VEERASWAMY M 52 Independent

9 KECHELA RANGA REDDY M 44 Independent

10 DATLA NAGESWAR RAO M 42 Independent

11 PADIGA YERRAIAH M 64 Independent

12 P. SATYANARAYANA M 32 Independent

S01 17 AP KHAMMAM 16-Apr-09 1 KAPILAVAI RAVINDER M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 THONDAPU VENKATESWARA RAO M 30 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 NAMA NAGESWARA RAO M 50 Telugu Desam

4 RENUKA CHOWDHURY F 54 Indian National Congress

5 JALAGAM HEMAMALINI F 40 Praja Rajyam Party

6 JUPELLI SATYANARAYANA M 61 Lok Satta Party

7 MANUKONDA RAGHURAM PRASAD M 55 Pyramid Party of India

8 SHAIK MADAR SAHEB M 40 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

9 AVULA VENKATESWARLU M 45 Independent

10 CHANDA LINGAIAH M 58 Independent

11 DANDA LINGAIAH M 59 Independent

12 BANOTH LAXMA NAIK M 52 Independent

13 MALLAVARAPU JEREMIAH M 63 Independent

S01 18 AP ARUKU 16-Apr-09 1 KISHORE CHANDRA SURYANARAYANA DEO VYRICHERLA M 62 Indian National Congress

2 KURUSA BOJJAIAH M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 GADUGU BALLAYYA DORA M 38 Rashtriya Janata Dal

4 MIDIYAM BABU RAO M 58 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5 LAKE RAJA RAO M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

6 MEENAKA SIMHACHALAM M 43 Praja Rajyam Party

7 VADIGALA PENTAYYA M 56 Lok Satta Party

8 APPA RAO KINJEDI M 48 Independent

9 ARIKA GUMPA SWAMY M 60 Independent

10 ILLA RAMI REDDY M 54 Independent

11 JAYALAKSHMI SHAMBUDU F 39 Independent

S01 19 AP SRIKAKULAM 16-Apr-09 1 YERRNNAIDU KINJARAPU M 50 Telugu Desam

2 KILLI KRUPA RANI F 47 Indian National Congress

3 TANKALA SUDHAKARA RAO M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 DUPPALA RAVINDARA BABU M 38 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 KALYANI VARUDU F 29 Praja Rajyam Party

6 NANDA PRASADA RAO M 37 Pyramid Party of India

S01 20 AP VIZIANAGARAM 16-Apr-09 1 APPALA NAIDU KONDAPALLI M 41 Telugu Desam

2 GOTTAPU CHINAMNAIDU M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 JHANSI LAXMI BOTCHA F 45 Indian National Congress

4 SANYASI RAJU PAKALAPATI M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 KIMIDI GANAPATHI RAO M 52 Praja Rajyam Party

6 LUNKARAN JAIN M 60 Pyramid Party of India

7 DATTLA SATYA APPALA SIVANANDA RAJU M 34 Lok Satta Party

8 VENKATA SATYA NARAYANA RAGHUMANDA M 28 Bharatiya Sadbhawna Samaj Party

9 MAHESWARA RAO VARRI M 35 Independent

S01 21 AP VISAKHAPATNAM 16-Apr-09 1 I.M.AHMED M 41 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 DAGGUBATI PURANDESWARI F 49 Indian National Congress

3 DR.M.V.V.S.MURTHI M 70 Telugu Desam

4 D.V.SUBBARAO M 76 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 PALLA SRINIVASA RAO M 40 Praja Rajyam Party

6 BETHALA KEGIYA RANI F 26 Bahujan Samaj Party(Ambedkar-Phule)

7 D.BHARATHI F 53 Pyramid Party of India

8 D.V.RAMANA (VASU MASTER) M 37 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

9 RAMESH LANKA M 49 Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party

10 M.T.VENKATESWARALU M 42 Lok Satta Party

11 APPARAO GOLAGANA M 46 Independent

12 BANDAM VENKATA RAO YADAV M 32 Independent

13 YADDANAPUDI RANGARAO M 78 Independent

14 YALAMANCHILI PRASAD M 54 Independent

15 RANGARAJU KALIDINDI M 46 Independent

S01 22 AP ANAKAPALLI 16-Apr-09 1 APPA RAO KIRLA M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 NOOKARAPU SURYA PRAKASA RAO M 50 Telugu Desam

3 BHEEMISETTI NAGESWARARAO M 41 Rashtriya Janata Dal

4 VENKATA RAMANA BABU PILLA M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 SABBAM HARI M 55 Indian National Congress

6 ALLU ARAVIND M 62 Praja Rajyam Party

7 PULAMARASETTI VENKATA RAMANA M 28 Pyramid Party of India

8 BOYINA NAGESWARA RAO M 52 Janata Dal (United)

9 NANDA GOPAL GANDHAM M 60 Independent

10 PATHALA SATYA RAO M 46 Independent

S02 1 AR ARUNACHAL WEST 16-Apr-09 1 KIREN RIJIJU M 37 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 TAKAM SANJOY M 42 Indian National Congress

3 TABA TAKU M 25 Lok Bharati

4 SUBU KECHI M 36 Independent

S02 2 AR ARUNACHAL EAST 16-Apr-09 1 LOWANGCHA WANGLAT M 66 Arunachal Congress

2 NINONG ERING M 50 Indian National Congress

3 TAPIR GAO M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 DR. SAMSON BORANG M 33 People’s Party of Arunachal

S03 1 AS KARIMGANJ 16-Apr-09 1 RAJESH MALLAH M 43 Assam United Democratic Front

2 LALIT MOHAN SUKLABAIDYA M 68 Indian National Congress

3 SUDHANGSHU DAS M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 UTTAM NOMOSUDRA M 34 Independent

5 JOY DAS M 37 Independent

6 DEBASISH DAS M 36 Independent

7 PROBHASH CH. SARKAR M 36 Independent

8 BIJON ROY M 35 Independent

9 BIJOY MALAKAR M 42 Independent

10 MALATI ROY F 42 Independent

11 MILON SINGHA M 42 Independent

12 RANJAN NAMASUDRA M 41 Independent

13 RAJESH CHANDRA ROY M 29 Independent

14 SITAL PRASAD DUSAD M 55 Independent

15 HIMANGSHU KUMAR DAS M 28 Independent

S03 2 AS SILCHAR 16-Apr-09 1 KABINDRA PURKAYASTHA M 74 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 DIPAK BHATTACHARJEE M 69 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3 BADRUDDIN AJMAL M 54 Assam United Democratic Front

4 SONTOSH MOHAN DEV M 75 Indian National Congress

5 KANTIMOY DEB M 60 Independent

6 CHANDAN RABIDAS M 34 Independent

7 JAYANTA MALLICK M 36 Independent

8 JOY SUNDAR DAS M 38 Independent

9 NAGENDRA CHANDRA DAS M 28 Independent

10 NAZRUL HAQUE MAZARBHUIYAN M 36 Independent

11 NABADWIP DAS M 58 Independent

12 PIJUSH KANTI DAS M 38 Independent

13 MANISH BHATTACHARJEE M 62 Independent

14 YOGENDRA KUMAR SINGH M 40 Independent

15 SUBIR DEB M 41 Independent

16 SUMIT ROY M 33 Independent

S03 3 AS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT 16-Apr-09 1 KULENDRA DAULAGUPU M 36 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 BIREN SINGH ENGTI M 64 Indian National Congress

3 HIDDHINATH RONGPI M 45 Nationalist Congress Party

4 ELWIN TERON M 48 Autonomous State Demand Committee

5 DR. JAYANTA RONGPI M 54 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6 KABON TIMUNGPI F 56 Independent

S04 17 BR GOPALGANJ 16-Apr-09 1 ANIL KUMAR M 41 Rashtriya Janata Dal

2 JANAK RAM M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 PURNMASI RAM M 52 Janata Dal (United)

4 RAMAI RAM M 66 Indian National Congress

5 MADHU BHARTI F 39 Loktantrik Samata Dal

6 RAM KUMAR MANJHI M 30 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

7 RAMASHANKAR RAM M 43 Rashtriya Jan-Jagram Morcha

8 SATYADEO RAM M 39 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

9 ASHA DEVI F 46 Independent

10 DINANATH MANJHI M 31 Independent

11 DHARMENDRA KUMAR HAZRA M 41 Independent

12 BANITHA BAITHA F 25 Independent

13 RAJESH KUMAR RAM M 28 Independent

14 RAM SURAT RAM M 42 Independent

15 SHAMBHU DOM M 41 Independent

16 SURENDRA PASWAN M 28 Independent

S04 18 BR SIWAN 16-Apr-09 1 PARASH NATH PATHAK M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 BRISHIN PATEL M 60 Janata Dal (United)

3 VIJAY SHANKER DUBEY M 60 Indian National Congress

4 HENA SHAHAB F 36 Rashtriya Janata Dal

5 AMAR NATH YADAV M 44 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6 ASWANI KR. VERMA M 28 Indian Justice Party

7 MADHURI PANDAY F 35 Samajik Jantantrik Party

8 LAL BABU TIWARI M 55 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

9 UMESH TIWARY M 30 Independent

10 OM PRAKASH YADAV M 43 Independent

11 NIDHI KIRTI F 26 Independent

12 PRABHU NATH MALI M 26 Independent

13 DR. MUNESHWAR PRASAD M 68 Independent

14 RAJENDRA KUMAR M 36 Independent

15 SHAMBHU NATH PRASAD M 60 Independent

S04 19 BR MAHARAJGANJ 16-Apr-09 1 UMA SHANAKER SINGH M 61 Rashtriya Janata Dal

2 TARKESHWAR SINGH M 51 Indian National Congress

3 PRABHU NATH SINGH M 56 Janata Dal (United)

4 RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 RAMESH SINGH KUSHWAHA M 59 Loktantrik Samata Dal

6 SATYENDRA KR. SAHANI M 41 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7 GAUTAM PRASAD M 30 Independent

8 DHURENDRA RAM M 47 Independent

9 NAYAN PRASAD M 53 Independent

10 PRADEEP MANJHI M 32 Independent

11 BANKE BIHARI SINGH M 25 Independent

12 RAJESH KUMAR SINGH M 26 Independent

13 BREENDA PATHAK M 63 Independent

S04 20 BR SARAN 16-Apr-09 1 RAJIV PRATAP RUDY M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 LALU PRASAD M 60 Rashtriya Janata Dal

3 SALIM PERWEZ M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 SANTOSH PATEL M 39 Loktantrik Samata Dal

5 SOHEL AKHATAR M 33 Bharatiya Momin Front

6 KUMAR BALRAM SINGH M 56 Independent

7 DHUPENDRA SINGH M 33 Independent

8 RAJKUMAR RAI M 33 Independent

9 RAJAN HRISHIKESH CHANDRA M 25 Independent

10 RAJARAM SAHANI M 49 Independent

11 LAL BABU RAY M 46 Independent

12 SHEO DAS SINGH M 74 Independent

S04 32 BR ARRAH 16-Apr-09 1 MEENA SINGH F 44 Janata Dal (United)

2 RAMA KISHORE SINGH M 46 Lok Jan Shakti Party

3 REETA SINGH F 40 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 HARIDWAR PRASAD SINGH M 64 Indian National Congress

5 AJIT PRASAD MEHTA M 43 Jawan Kisan Morcha

6 ARUN SINGH M 48 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7 BHARAT BHUSAN PANDEY M 35 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

8 RAMADHAR SINGH M 48 Shivsena

9 SAMBHU PRASAD SHARMA M 57 All India Forward Bloc

10 SANTOSH KUMAR M 32 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

11 SATYA NARAYAN YADAV M 67 Rashtra Sewa Dal

12 SAIYAD GANIUDDIN HAIDER M 42 Ambedkar National Congress

13 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH M 38 Independent

14 BHARAT SINGH SAHYOGI M 45 Independent

15 MAHESH RAM M 45 Independent

16 SOBH NATH SINGH M 39 Independent

S04 33 BR BUXAR 16-Apr-09 1 KAMLA KANT TIWARY M 67 Indian National Congress

2 JAGADA NAND SINGH M 65 Rashtriya Janata Dal

3 LAL MUNI CHOUBEY M 71 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 SHYAM LAL SINGH KUSHWAHA M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 MOKARRAM HUSSAIN M 57 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

6 MOHAN SAH M 33 Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal

7 RAJENDRA SINGH MAURYA M 32 Loktantrik Samata Dal

8 DR. VIJENDRA NATH UPADHYAY M 37 Shivsena

9 SHYAM BIHARI BIND M 46 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

10 SATYENDRA OJHA M 27 Apna Dal

11 SUDAMA PRASAD M 41 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

12 SURESH WADEKAR M 38 Republican Party of India

13 KAMLESH CHOUDHARY M 35 Independent

14 JAI SINGH YADAV M 34 Independent

15 DADAN SINGH M 45 Independent

16 PRATIBHA DEVI F 40 Independent

17 PHULAN PANDIT M 44 Independent

18 RAJENDRA PASWAN M 33 Independent

19 LALLAN RUPNARAIN PATHAK M 65 Independent

20 SHIV CHARAN YADAV M 55 Independent

21 SUNIL KUMAR DUBEY M 32 Independent

22 SURENDRA KUMAR BHARTI M 38 Independent

S04 34 BR SASARAM 16-Apr-09 1 GANDHI AZAD M 62 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 MEIRA KUMAR F 63 Indian National Congress

3 MUNI LAL M 61 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 LALAN PASWAN M 45 Rashtriya Janata Dal

5 DUKHI RAM M 39 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6 BABBAN CHAUDHARY M 39 Loktantrik Samata Dal

7 BALIRAM RAM M 43 Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party

8 BHOLA PRASAD M 38 Indian Justice Party

9 RADHA DEBI F 28 Apna Dal

10 RAM NAGINA RAM M 41 Rashtriya Krantikari Janata Party

11 RAM YADI RAM M 72 Republican Party of India

12 PRAMOD KUMAR M 26 Independent

13 BHARAT RAM M 33 Independent

14 MUNIYA DEBI F 41 Independent

15 RAM PRAVESH RAM M 47 Independent

16 SURENDRA RAM M 39 Independent

S04 35 BR KARAKAT 16-Apr-09 1 AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH M 53 Indian National Congress

2 UPENDRA KUMAR SHARMA M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 KANTI SINGH F 54 Rashtriya Janata Dal

4 MAHABALI SINGH M 54 Janata Dal (United)

5 AJAY KUMAR M 32 Republican Party of India (A)

6 JYOTI RASHMI F 30 Rashtra Sewa Dal

7 MUDREEKA YADAV M 59 Apna Dal

8 RAJ KISHOR MISRA M 30 Alpjan Samaj Party

9 RAJA RAM SINGH M 53 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

10 MD.SHAMIULLAH MANSOORI M 62 Shoshit Samaj Dal

11 ER.ABDUL SATAR M 62 Independent

12 AMAVAS RAM M 50 Independent

13 PRO. KAMTA PRASAD YADAV M 46 Independent

14 GIRISH NARAYAN SINGH M 48 Independent

15 SATISH PANDEY M 27 Independent

16 HARI PRASAD SINGH M 63 Independent

S04 36 BR JAHANABAD 16-Apr-09 1 DR. ARUN KUMAR M 49 Indian National Congress

2 JAGDISH SHARMA M 58 Janata Dal (United)

3 RAMADHAR SHARMA M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 SURENDRA PRASAD YADAV M 51 Rashtriya Janata Dal

5 AYASHA KHATUN F 28 Loktantrik Samata Dal

6 PROF. JAI RAM PRASAD SINGH M 70 Shoshit Samaj Dal

7 TARA GUPTA F 62 Rashtriya Pragati Party

8 MAHANAND PRASAD M 41 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

9 RAMASRAY PRASAD SINGH M 83 Rashtriya Lok Dal

10 MD. SAHABUDDIN JAHAN M 36 Bharatiya Sarvodaya Kranti Party

11 SHRAVAN KUMAR M 32 Lal Morcha

12 SADHU SINHA M 68 All India Forward Bloc

13 SYED AKBAR IMAM M 49 Akhil Bharatiya Ashok Sena

14 AJAY KUMAR VERMA M 41 Independent

15 ABHAY KUMAR ANIL M 41 Independent

16 DR. ARBIND KUMAR M 52 Independent

17 ARVIND PRASAD SINGH M 43 Independent

18 UPENDRA PRASAD M 31 Independent

19 JAGDISH YADAV M 40 Independent

20 PRIKSHIT SINGH M 36 Independent

21 PRABHAT KUMAR RANJAN M 32 Independent

22 RANJIT SHARMA M 28 Independent

23 RAKESHWAR KISHOR M 35 Independent

24 SIYA RAM PRASAD M 40 Independent

25 SUMIRAK SINGH M 50 Independent

S04 37 BR AURANGABAD 16-Apr-09 1 ARCHANA CHANDRA F 32 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 NIKHIL KUMAR M 67 Indian National Congress

3 SHAKIL AHMAD KHAN M 61 Rashtriya Janata Dal

4 SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH M 43 Janata Dal (United)

5 ANIL KUMAR SINGH M 36 Rashtra Sewa Dal

6 AMERIKA MAHTO M 48 Shoshit Samaj Dal

7 RAM KUMAR MEHTA M 37 Loktantrik Samata Dal

8 VIJAY PASWAN M 48 Bharatiya Sarvodaya Kranti Party

9 ASLAM ANSARI M 38 Independent

10 INDRA DEO RAM M 58 Independent

11 UDAY PASWAN M 41 Independent

12 PUNA DAS M 34 Independent

13 RANJEET KUMAR M 48 Independent

14 RAJENDRA YADAV M 42 Independent

15 RAMSWARUP PRASAD YADAV M 72 Independent

16 SANTOSH KUMAR M 40 Independent

S04 38 BR GAYA 16-Apr-09 1 KALAWATI DEVI F 27 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 RAMJI MANJHI M 49 Rashtriya Janata Dal

3 SANJIV PRASAD TONI M 52 Indian National Congress

4 HARI MANJHI M 47 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 DILIP PASWAN M 41 Navbharat Nirman Party

6 NIRANJAN KUMAR M 35 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7 RAJESH KUMAR M 27 Loktantrik Samata Dal

8 RAMDEV ARYA PAAN M 67 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

9 AMAR NATH PRASAD M 35 Independent

10 KRISHNA CHOUDHARY M 26 Independent

11 KAIL DAS M 66 Independent

12 DIPAK PASWAN M 27 Independent

13 RAM KISHORE PASWAN M 36 Independent

14 RAMU PASWAN M 29 Independent

15 SHIV SHANKAR KUMAR M 33 Independent

16 SHYAM LAL MANJHI M 50 Independent

S04 39 BR NAWADA 16-Apr-09 1 GANESH SHANKAR VIDYARTHI M 85 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 BHOLA SINGH M 70 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 MASIH UDDIN M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 VEENA DEVI F 36 Lok Jan Shakti Party

5 SUNILA DEVI F 38 Indian National Congress

6 UMAKANT RAHI M 37 Shoshit Samaj Dal

7 KAILASH PAL M 48 Bharatiya Sarvodaya Kranti Party

8 VIDHYAPATI SINGH M 46 Loktantrik Samata Dal

9 SURENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARY M 45 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

10 AKHILESH SINGH M 38 Independent

11 ANIL MEHTA M 36 Independent

12 KAUSHAL YADAV M 39 Independent

13 CHANCHALA DEVI F 33 Independent

14 DURGA PRASAD DHAR M 29 Independent

15 NAVIN KUMAR VERMA M 38 Independent

16 RAJ KISHOR RAJ M 43 Independent

17 RAJ BALLABH PRASAD M 46 Independent

18 RAJENDRA VISHAL M 44 Independent

19 RAJENDRA SINGH M 60 Independent

20 SHAMBHU PRASAD M 41 Independent

21 SUNIL KUMAR M 28 Independent

S04 40 BR JAMUI 16-Apr-09 1 ASHOK CHOUDHARY M 42 Indian National Congress

2 GAJADHAR RAJAK M 63 Communist Party of India

3 BHAGWAN DAS M 61 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 BHUDEO CHOUDHARY M 46 Janata Dal (United)

5 SHYAM RAJAK M 56 Rashtriya Janata Dal

6 ARJUN MANJHI M 45 Jago Party

7 UPENDRA RAVIDAS M 30 Samata Party

8 OM PRAKASH PASWAN M 62 Loktantrik Samata Dal

9 GULAB CHANDRA PASWAN M 58 Rashtriya Krantikari Janata Party

10 NUNDEO MANJHI M 54 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

11 PRASADI PASWAN M 37 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

12 SUBHASH PASWAN M 36 Samajtantric Party of India

13 KAPILDEO DAS M 55 Independent

14 JAY SEKHAR MANJHI M 48 Independent

15 PAPPU RAJAK M 40 Independent

16 YOGENDRA PASWAN M 37 Independent

17 VIJAY PASWAN M 29 Independent

18 BILAKSHAN RAVIDAS M 51 Independent

19 SARYUG PASWAN M 65 Independent

S09 6 JK JAMMU 16-Apr-09 1 S.TARLOK SINGH M 59 Jammu & Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party

2 HUSSAIN ALI M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 LILA KARAN SHARMA M 68 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 MADAN LAL SHARMA M 56 Indian National Congress

5 UDAY CHAND M 55 Duggar Pradesh Party

6 SURJIT SINGH ‘G’ SITARA M 58 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

7 SANT RAM M 73 Bharatiya Bahujan Party

8 SANJEEV KUMAR MANMOTRA M 42 Lok Jan Shakti Party

9 QARI ZAHIR ABBAS BHATTI M 39 All India Forward Bloc

10 ABDUL MAJEED MALIK M 37 Backward Classes Democratic Party, J&K

11 ASHOK KUMAR M 45 Independent

12 BALWAN SINGH M 35 Independent

13 PARAS RAM POONCHI M 56 Independent

14 RAMESH CHANDER SHARMA M 36 Independent

15 SATISH POONCHI M 60 Independent

16 SANJAY KUMAR M 39 Independent

17 SHAKEELA BANO F 32 Independent

18 LABHA RAM GANDHI M 46 Independent

19 CH. MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN CHOUHAN M 38 Independent

20 NARESH DOGRA M 40 Independent

21 HILAL AHMED BAIG M 29 Independent

S11 1 KL KASARAGOD 16-Apr-09 1 P KARUNAKARAN M 64 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 K.H.MADHAVI F 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 SHAHIDA KAMAL F 40 Indian National Congress

4 K. SURENDRAN M 37 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 ABBAS MUTHALAPPARA M 47 Independent

6 MOHAN NAYAK M 73 Independent

7 P.K. RAMAN M 48 Independent

S11 2 KL KANNUR 16-Apr-09 1 P.P KARUNAKARAN MASTER M 61 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 K.K BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 K.K RAGESH M 38 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

4 K. SUDHAKARAN M 60 Indian National Congress

5 P.I. CHANDRASEKHARAN M 53 The Humanist Party of India

6 JOHNSON ALIAS SUNNY AMBATT M 48 Independent

7 K. RAGESH S/O. JANARDHANAN M 33 Independent

8 PATTATHIL RAGHAVAN M 82 Independent

9 K. SUDHAKARAN KAVINTE ARIKATH M 39 Independent

S11 3 KL VADAKARA 16-Apr-09 1 ADV.K. NOORUDHEEN MUSALIAR M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 MULLAPPALLY RAMACHANDRAN M 64 Indian National Congress

3 K.P SREESAN M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 ADV. P. SATHEEDEVI F 52 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5 T.P CHANDRASEKHARAN M 47 Independent

6 NAROTH RAMACHANDRAN M 58 Independent

7 P.SATHIDEVI PALLIKKAL F 36 Independent

8 SATHEEDEVI F 42 Independent

S11 4 KL WAYANAD 16-Apr-09 1 K. MURALEEDHARAN M 51 Nationalist Congress Party

2 RAJEEV JOSEPH M 40 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 C. VASUDEVAN MASTER M 65 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 M.I. SHANAVAS M 57 Indian National Congress

5 ADVOCATE. M. RAHMATHULLA M 48 Communist Party of India

6 KALLANGODAN ABDUL LATHEEF M 46 Independent

7 CLETUS M 52 Independent

8 DR. NALLA THAMPY THERA M 75 Independent

9 ADVOCATE. SHANAVAS MALAPPURAM M 36 Independent

10 SHANAVAS MANAKULANGARA PARAMBIL M 29 Independent

11 SUNNY PONNAMATTOM M 58 Independent

12 M.P. RAHMATH M 30 Independent

13 RAHMATHULLA POOLADAN M 36 Independent

S11 5 KL KOZHIKODE 16-Apr-09 1 A.K. ABDUL NASAR M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 ADV. P.A. MOHAMED RIYAS M 33 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3 V. MURALEEDHARAN M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 M.K. RAGHAVAN M 57 Indian National Congress

5 ADV. P. KUMARANKUTTY M 64 Independent

6 K. MUHAMMED RIYAS M 27 Independent

7 P. MUHAMMED RIYAS M 28 Independent

8 P.A. MOHAMMED RIYAS M 37 Independent

9 MUDOOR MUHAMMED HAJI M 44 Independent

10 K. RAGHAVAN M 44 Independent

11 P. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR M 63 Independent

12 M. RAGHAVAN M 65 Independent

13 VINOD K. M 33 Independent

14 ADV. SABI JOSEPH M 60 Independent

15 DR. D.SURENDRANATH M 60 Independent

16 RIYAS M 31 Independent

S11 6 KL MALAPPURAM 16-Apr-09 1 ADV.E.A. ABOOBACKER M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 ADV. N. ARAVINDAN M 43 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 E. AHAMED M 70 Muslim League Kerala State Committee

4 T.K. HAMSA M 71 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

S11 7 KL PONNANI 16-Apr-09 1 K. JANACHANDRAN MASTER M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 P.K. MUHAMMED M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 E.T. MUHAMMED BASHEER M 62 Muslim League Kerala State Committee

4 ABDUREHMAN M 32 Independent

5 DR. AZAD M 45 Independent

6 PULLANI GOVINDAN M 64 Independent

7 DR. HUSSAIN RANTATHANI M 51 Independent

8 HUSSAIN EDAYATH M 29 Independent

9 HUSSAIN KADAIKKAL M 37 Independent

10 HUSSAIN PERICHAYIL M 42 Independent

11 HUSSAIN M 29 Independent

12 DR. HUSSAIN M 40 Independent

13 K. SADANANDAN M 62 Independent

S11 8 KL PALAKKAD 16-Apr-09 1 ABDUL RAZAK MOULAVI M 47 Nationalist Congress Party

2 CHANDRAN. V M 63 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 C.K. PADMANABHAN M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 M.B. RAJESH M 34 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5 SATHEESAN PACHENI M 41 Indian National Congress

6 A. AROKIASAMY M 61 Independent

7 M.R. MURALI M 43 Independent

8 N.V. RAJESH M 35 Independent

9 VIJAYAN AMBALAKKAD M 42 Independent

10 SATHEESAN. E.V M 37 Independent

S11 9 KL ALATHUR 16-Apr-09 1 P.K BIJU M 34 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 M. BINDU TEACHER F 35 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 DR. G SUDEVAN M 61 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 N.K SUDHEER M 44 Indian National Congress

5 K. GOPALAKRISHNAN M 39 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6 BIJU K.K M 38 Independent

7 P.C BIJU M 36 Independent

8 C.K RAMAKRISHNAN M 43 Independent

9 K.K SUDHIR M 44 Independent

S11 10 KL THRISSUR 16-Apr-09 1 P C CHACKO M 62 Indian National Congress

2 C N JAYADEVAN M 58 Communist Party of India

3 ADV. JOSHY THARAKAN M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 REMA REGUNANDAN F 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 AJAYAN KUTTIKAT M 36 Janata Dal (United)

6 K ARUN KUMAR M 39 Independent

7 KUNJAN PULAYAN M 52 Independent

8 E A JOSEPH M 49 Independent

9 N K RAVI M 46 Independent

10 P C SAJU M 35 Independent

11 ADV. N HARIHARAN NAIR M 63 Independent

S11 11 KL CHALAKUDY 16-Apr-09 1 ADV. U.P JOSEPH M 45 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 K.P. DHANAPALAN M 59 Indian National Congress

3 MUTTAM ABDULLA M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 ADV.K.V. SABU M 47 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 HAMSA KALAPARAMBATH M 47 Lok Jan Shakti Party

6 JOHNNY K CHEEKU M 47 Independent

7 JOSE MAVELI M 58 Independent

8 U.P JOSE M 45 Independent

9 DR. P.S. BABU M 42 Independent

10 T.S NARAYANAN MASTER M 67 Independent

11 C.A. HASEENA F 36 Independent

S11 12 KL ERNAKULAM 16-Apr-09 1 PROF. K V THOMAS M 61 Indian National Congress

2 A.N. RADHAKRISHNAN M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 SHERIF MOHAMMED M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 SINDHU JOY F 32 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5 SAJU THOMAS M 43 Lok Jan Shakti Party

6 MARY FRANCIS MOOLAMPILLY F 59 Independent

7 VISWAMBARAN M 59 Independent

8 SAJI THURUTHIKUNNEL M 37 Independent

9 SINDHU K.S F 36 Independent

10 SINDHU JAYAN F 38 Independent

S11 13 KL IDUKKI 16-Apr-09 1 ADV. P.T THOMAS M 59 Indian National Congress

2 ADV. K. FRANCIS GEORGE M 54 Kerala Congress

3 ADV. BIJU M JOHN M 40 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 SREENAGARI RAJAN M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 VASUDEVAN M 39 Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katch

6 ADV. CHITTOOR RAJAMANNAR M 50 Independent

7 JOSE KUTTIYANY M 69 Independent

8 KANCHIYAR PEETHAMBARAN M 45 Independent

9 BABY M 51 Independent

10 M A SOOSAI M 45 Independent

S11 14 KL KOTTAYAM 16-Apr-09 1 JOSE K.MANI M 44 Kerala Congress (M)

2 ADV. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 ADV. SURESH KURUP M 52 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

4 SPENCER MARKS M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 ADV. JAIMON THANKACHAN M 39 Samajwadi Jan Parishad

6 ANTO P JOHN M 41 Independent

7 JUNO JOHN BABY M 34 Independent

8 JOSE M 45 Independent

9 JOSE MATHEW M 32 Independent

10 JOSE K. MANI M 32 Independent

11 BABU M 41 Independent

12 K.T MATHEW M 50 Independent

13 MINI K PHILIP F 41 Independent

14 M.S RAVEENDRAN M 49 Independent

15 K. RAJAPPAN M 57 Independent

16 SASIKUTTAN VAKATHANAM M 53 Independent

17 SURESH N.B KURUP M 26 Independent

18 SURESHKUMAR K M 33 Independent

19 SURESHKUMAR T.R M 36 Independent

20 SURESH KURUMBAN M 36 Independent

S11 15 KL ALAPPUZHA 16-Apr-09 1 DR. K.S MANOJ M 43 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 K.C VENUGOPAL M 46 Indian National Congress

3 K.S PRASAD M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 P.J KURIAN M 63 Janata Dal (United)

5 S. SEETHILAL M 45 Independent

6 SONY J. KALYANKUMAR M 51 Independent

S11 16 KL MAVELIKKARA 16-Apr-09 1 R.S ANIL M 34 Communist Party of India

2 KODIKKUNNIL SURESH M 46 Indian National Congress

3 DR. N.D MOHAN M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 P.M VELAYUDHAN M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 ANIL KUMAR M 26 Independent

6 K.S SASIKALA F 40 Independent

7 SOORANAD SUKUMARAN M 60 Independent

S11 17 KL PATHANAMTHITTA 16-Apr-09 1 ANANTHA GOPAN M 61 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 ANTO ANTONY M 52 Indian National Congress

3 KARUNAKARAN NAIR M 78 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 MANI C.KAPPEN M 51 Nationalist Congress Party

5 RADHAKRISHNA MENON M 44 Bharatiya Janata Party

6 KUNJU PILLAI M 60 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7 ANTO M 33 Independent

8 JYOTHISH M.R M 37 Independent

9 THAMBI M 40 Independent

10 NIRANAM RAJAN M 47 Independent

11 PUSHPANGADAN M 40 Independent

12 MATHEW PAREY M 26 Independent

S11 18 KL KOLLAM 16-Apr-09 1 ADVT. K M JAYANANDAN M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 N.PEETHAMBARAKURUP M 66 Indian National Congress

3 VAYAKKAL MADHU M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 P.RAJENDRAN M 58 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5 ADV.ANU SASI M 28 Independent

6 KRISHNAMMAL F 59 Independent

7 K A JOHN M 55 Independent

8 N.PEETHAMBARAKURUP M 61 Independent

9 S.PRADEEP KUMAR M 30 Independent

10 S.RADHAKRISHNAN M 47 Independent

11 R.ZAKIEER HUSSAIN M 37 Independent

S11 19 KL ATTINGAL 16-Apr-09 1 PROF.G BALACHANDRAN M 63 Indian National Congress

2 THOTTAKKADU SASI M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 ADV. A SAMPATH M 46 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

4 J SUDHAKARAN M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 SREENATH M 53 Shivsena

6 JAYAKUMAR M 56 Independent

7 BALACHANDRAN M 51 Independent

8 BALACHNDRAN C P M 59 Independent

9 MURALI KUMAR M 43 Independent

10 J VIJAYAKUMAR M 49 Independent

11 VIVEKANANDAN M 59 Independent

12 SHAMSUDEEN M 56 Independent

13 SAJIMON M 25 Independent

14 SAIFUDEEN M M 55 Independent

S11 20 KL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 16-Apr-09 1 P K KRISHNA DAS M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 M.P.GANGADHARAN M 74 Nationalist Congress Party

3 DR.A NEELALOHITHADASAN NADAR M 61 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 ADV. P RAMACHANDRAN NAIR M 57 Communist Party of India

5 SHASHI THAROOR M 53 Indian National Congress

6 AJITHKUMAR.K M 41 All India Trinamool Congress

7 JAIN WILSON M 41 Bahujan Shakty

8 G ASHOKAN M 47 Independent

9 T.GEORGE M 40 Independent

10 DILEEP M 28 Independent

11 U.NAHURMIRAN PEERU MOHAMMED M 49 Independent

12 PRATHAPAN M 54 Independent

13 MOHANAN JOSHWA M 49 Independent

14 SASI – JANAKI SADAN M 39 Independent

15 SASI – KALAPURAKKAL M 51 Independent

16 SHAJAR KHAN M 38 Independent

S13 5 MH BULDHANA 16-Apr-09 1 JADHAV PRATAPRAO GANPATRAO M 49 Shivsena

2 DANDGE VASANTRAO SUGDEO M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 SHINGNE DR.RAJENDRA BHASKARRAO M 48 Nationalist Congress Party

4 AMARDEEP BALASAHEB DESHMUKH M 27 Krantisena Maharashtra

5 QURRASHI SK.SIKANDAR SK. SHAUKAT M 33 Democratic Secular Party

6 GAJANAN RAJARAM SIRSAT M 27 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7 DHOKNE RAVINDRA TULSHRAMJI M 44 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

8 FERAN CHADRAHAS JAGDEO M 54 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

9 GANESH ARJUN ZORE M 25 Independent

10 TAYDE VITTHAL PANDHARI M 56 Independent

11 DEVIDAS PIRAJI SARKATE M 35 Independent

12 SY. BILAL SY. USMAN M 38 Independent

13 BHARAT PUNJAJI SHINGANE M 40 Independent

14 RAJESH NIKANTHRAO TATHE M 52 Independent

15 RATHOD CHHAGAN BABULAL M 29 Independent

S13 6 MH AKOLA 16-Apr-09 1 DHOTRE SANJAY SHAMRAO M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 BABASAHEB DHABEKAR M 78 Indian National Congress

3 ATIK AHAMAD GU. JILANI M 34 Democratic Secular Party

4 AMBEDKAR PRAKASH YASHWANT M 56 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5 GANESH TULSHIRAM TATHE M 49 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

6 DIPAK SHRIRAM TIRAKE M 33 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7 AJABRAO UTTAMRAO BHONGADE M 36 Independent

8 THAKURDAS GOVIND CHOUDHARI M 39 Independent

9 MUJAHID KHAN CHAND KHAN M 42 Independent

10 RAUT DEVIDAS ANANDRAO M 45 Independent

11 WASUDEORAO KHADE GURUJI M 68 Independent

S13 7 MH AMRAVATI 16-Apr-09 1 ADSUL ANANDRAO VITHOBA M 61 Shivsena

2 GANGADHAR GADE M 62 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 UGLE SUNIL NAMDEV M 32 Peoples Republican Party

4 UBALE SHRIKRISHNA CHAMPATRAO M 62 Ambedkarist Republican Party

5 KESHAV DASHARATH WANKHADE M 38 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

6 GAWAI RAJENDRA RAMKRUSHNA M 46 Republican Party of India

7 PRINCIPAL GOPICHAND SURYABHAN MESHRAM M 52 Republican Paksha (Khoripa)

8 BARSE MANOHAR DAULATRAO M 53 Indian Union Muslim League

9 SAU MAMATA VINAYAK KANDALKAR F 31 Assam United Democratic Front

10 DR. HEMANTKUMAR RAMBHAU MAHURE M 34 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

11 AMOL DEVIDASRAO JADHAV M 25 Independent

12 UMAK SHRIKRUSHNA SHYAMRAO M 57 Independent

13 BANDU SAMPATRAO SANE (BANDYA L.S.) M 43 Independent

14 BHAURAO SHRIRAM CHHAPANE M 38 Independent

15 MITHUN HIRAMAN GAIKWAD M 51 Independent

16 PROF. MUKUND VITTHALRAO KHAIRE M 51 Independent

17 DR. RAJIV GULABRAO JAMTHE M 53 Independent

18 RAJU MAHADEVRAO SONONE M 38 Independent

19 VISHWANATH GOTUJI JAMNEKAR M 60 Independent

20 SUDHAKAR VYANKAT RAMTEKE (MAJI SAINIK) M 25 Independent

21 ADV. SUDHIR HIRAMAN TAYADE M 42 Independent

22 SUNIL PRABHU RAMTEKE M 37 Independent

S13 8 MH WARDHA 16-Apr-09 1 KANGALE BIPIN BABASAHEB M 32 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 DATTA MEGHE M 72 Indian National Congress

3 SURESH GANPATRAO WAGHMARE M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 DIWATE RAMESH MADHAORAO M 46 Krantisena Maharashtra

5 NARAYANRAO RAMJI CHIDAM M 68 Gondvana Gantantra Party

6 DR. NITIN KESHORAO CHAVAN M 46 Peoples Republican Party

7 PYARE SAHAB SHEIKH KARIM M 41 Democratic Secular Party

8 BHOSE KAILAS VISHWASRAO M 36 Gondwana Mukti Sena

9 ADV. SURESH SHINDE M 42 Indian Justice Party

10 SANGITA SUNIL ALIAS SONU KAMBLE F 33 Ambedkarist Republican Party

11 ISHWARKUMAR SHANKARRAO GHARPURE M 50 Independent

12 GUNWANT TUKARAMJI DAWANDE M 70 Independent

13 JAGANNATH NILKANTHRAO RAUT M 54 Independent

14 TAGADE VISHWESHWAR AWADHUTRAO M 47 Independent

15 RAMTEKE PRAKASH BAKARAM M 60 Independent

16 SARANG PRAKASHRAO YAWALKAR M 31 Independent

S13 9 MH RAMTEK 16-Apr-09 1 TUMANE KRUPAL BALAJI M 43 Shivsena

2 PRAKASHBHAU KISHAN TEMBHURNE M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 WASNIK MUKUL BALKRISHNA M 49 Indian National Congress

4 KUMBHARE SULEKHA NARAYAN F 49 Bahujan Republican Ekta Manch

5 DESHPANDE SANJAY SAOJI M 44 Hindustan Janta Party

6 NAGARKAR PRASHANT HANSRAJ M 34 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

7 NANDKISHOR SADHUJI DONGRE M 34 Gondvana Gantantra Party

8 BAGDE SUJEET WASUDEORAO M 43 Janata Dal (Secular)

9 PROF. BORKAR PRADIP DARYAV M 48 Republican Paksha (Khoripa)

10 MAYATAI CHAWRE (UTWAL) F 37 Samajwadi Party

11 VISKAS RAJARAM DAMLE M 41 Republican Party of India (Khobragade)

12 SEEMA JEEVAN RAMTEKE F 36 Democratic Secular Party

13 SANDIP SHESHRAO GAJBHIYE M 36 Gondwana Mukti Sena

14 ASHISH ARUN NAGARARE M 28 Independent

15 KHUSHAL UDARAMJI TUMANE M 53 Independent

16 DHONE ANIL M 43 Independent

17 ADV. DUPARE ULHAS SHALIKRAM M 42 Independent

18 BARWE MADHUKAR DOMAJI M 43 Independent

19 ADV. YUVRAJ ANANDRAOJI BAGDE M 34 Independent

20 RURESH MANGALDAS BORKAR M 33 Independent

S13 10 MH NAGPUR 16-Apr-09 1 PUROHIT BANWARILAL BHAGWANDAS M 69 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 ENGINEER MANIKRAO VAIDYA M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 MUTTEMWAR VILASRAO BABURAOJI M 60 Indian National Congress

4 ARUN SHAMRAO JOSHI M 58 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

5 KUMBHARE SULEKHA NARAYAN F 49 Bahujan Republican Ekta Manch

6 ADV. GAJANAN SADASHIV KAWALE M 51 Republican Paksha (Khoripa)

7 DILIP MANGAL MADAVI M 44 Gondvana Gantantra Party

8 MEHMOOD KHAN RAHEEM KHAN M 27 Democratic Secular Party

9 DR. YASHWANT MANOHAR M 66 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

10 RAUT RAMESHCHANDRA M 56 Prabuddha Republican Party

11 RAJESH SUKHDEV GAIKWAD M 32 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

12 ADV. VASANTA UMRE M 50 Democratic Party of India

13 SOMKUWAR VIJAY SITARAM M 41 Ambedkarist Republican Party

14 AZIZUR REHMAN SHEIKH M 46 Independent

15 ASHISH ARUN NAGRARE M 28 Independent

16 ADV. UPASHA BANSI TAYWADE M 67 Independent

17 JAGDISH RAGHUNATH AMBADE M 44 Independent

18 PRATIBHA UDAY KHAPARDE F 35 Independent

19 PREMDAS RAMCHANDRA RAMTEKE M 48 Independent

20 BARPATRE CHANDRABHAN SOMAJI M 48 Independent

21 BLASAHEB ALIAS PRAMOD RAMAJI SHAMBHARKAR M 40 Independent

22 MOHAMAD HABIB REEZAVI M 50 Independent

23 RAJESHKUMAR MOHANLAL PUGALIA M 37 Independent

24 RAHUL MADHUKAR DESHMUKH M 34 Independent

25 VIJAY DEVRAO DHAKATE M 26 Independent

26 SUNIL GAYAPRASAD MISHRA M 41 Independent

27 PROF. DNYANESH WAKUDKAR M 52 Independent

S13 11 MH BHANDARA – GONDIYA 16-Apr-09 1 GANVIR SHIVKUMAR NAGARCHI M 56 Communist Party of India

2 JAISWAL VIRENDRAKUMAR KASTURCHAND M 53 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 PATLE SHISHUPAL NATTHUJI M 42 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 PATEL PRAFUL MANOHARBHAI M 52 Nationalist Congress Party

5 UNDIRWADE HEMANT JAGIVAN M 45 Prabuddha Republican Party

6 JAMAIWAR SUNIL PARASRAM M 38 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7 PATHAN MUSHTAK LATIF M 32 Democratic Secular Party

8 PRATIBHA VASANT PIMPALKAR F 38 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

9 WASNIK SUNIL MANIRAM M 38 Republican Paksha (Khoripa)

10 UKEY CHINDHUJI LAKHAJI M 50 Independent

11 GAJBHIYE BRAMHASWARUP BABURAO M 33 Independent

12 GAJBHIYE RAJENDRA MAHADEO M 35 Independent

13 ADV. DHANANJAY SHAMLALJI RAJABHOJ M 50 Independent

14 NANABHAU FALGUNRAO PATOLE M 47 Independent

15 PATLE AKARSING SITARAM M 36 Independent

16 PROF. DR. BHASKARRAO MAHADEORAO JIBHAKATE M 63 Independent

17 MIRZA WAHIDBEG AHAMADBEG M 33 Independent

18 YELE GANESHRAM SUKHRAM M 54 Independent

19 RAHANGADALE MULCHAND OLGAN M 56 Independent

20 DR. RAMSAJIVAN KAWDU LILHARE M 60 Independent

21 SADANAND SHRAWANJI GANVIR M 40 Independent

S13 12 MH GADCHIROLI-CHIMUR 16-Apr-09 1 ASHOK MAHADEORAO NETE M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 ATRAM RAJE SATYAWANRAO M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 KOWASE MAROTRAO SAINUJI M 59 Indian National Congress

4 NAMDEO ANANDRAO KANNAKE M 50 Communist Party of India

5 PROFFESOR KHANDALE KAWDU TULSHIRAM M 69 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

6 ADV. DADMAL PRABHAKAR MAHAGUJI M 54 Peoples Republican Party

7 PENDAM DIWAKAR GULAB M 38 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

8 PENDAM PURUSHOTTAM ZITUJI M 35 Democratic Secular Party

9 VIJAY SURAJSING MADAVI M 39 Gondvana Gantantra Party

10 JAMBHULE NARAYAN DINABAJI M 54 Independent

11 DINESH TUKARAM MADAVI M 28 Independent

S13 13 MH CHANDRAPUR 16-Apr-09 1 AHIR HANSARAJ GANGARAM M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 PUGALIA NARESH M 60 Indian National Congress

3 ADV. HAZARE DATTABHAU KRUSHNARAO M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 KHARTAD LOMESH MAROTI M 55 Rashtrawadi Sena

5 KHOBRAGADE DESHAK GIRISHBABU M 38 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6 CHATAP WAMAN SADASHIVRAO M 58 Swatantra Bharat Paksha

7 JAWED ABDUL KURESHI ALIAS PROF. JAWED PASHA M 47 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

8 JITENDRA ADAKU RAUT M 32 Akhil Bhartiya Manavata Paksha

9 DANGE NATTHU BHAURAO M 41 Ambedkarist Republican Party

10 PATHAN A. RAZZAK KHAN HAYAT KHAN M 44 Samajwadi Party

11 MASRAM NIRANJAN SHIVRAM M 42 Gondvana Gantantra Party

12 KALE DAMODHAR LAXMAN M 85 Independent

13 QURESHI IKHALAQ MOHD. YUSUF M 51 Independent

14 GODE NARAYAN SHAHUJI M 42 Independent

15 DEKATE BHASKAR PARASHRAM M 55 Independent

16 MADHUKAR VITTHALRAO NISTANE M 43 Independent

17 MESHRAM CHARANDAS JANGLUJI M 65 Independent

18 RAMESH RAGHOBAJI TAJNE M 45 Independent

19 VINOD DINANATH MESHRAM M 34 Independent

20 VIRENDRA TARACHANDJI PUGLIA M 53 Independent

21 SHATRUGHN VYANKATRAO SONPIMPLE M 37 Independent

22 SANJAY NILKANTH GAWANDE M 45 Independent

23 HIWARKAR SUDHIR MOTIRAMJI M 43 Independent

S13 14 MH YAVATMAL-WASHIM 16-Apr-09 1 YEDATKAR DILIP LAXMANRAO M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 BHAVANA GAWALI (PATIL) F 36 Shivsena

3 HARISING RATHOD M 54 Indian National Congress

4 UTTAM BHAGAJI KAMBLE M 41 Prabuddha Republican Party

5 KURESHI SK. MEHBUB SK.FATTU M 44 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6 KWAJA NASIRODDINE KHAN M 29 Democratic Secular Party

7 GAJANAN KASHIRAM PATIL (HEMBADE) M 26 Krantisena Maharashtra

8 DHAGE VITTHAL MAHADEV M 45 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

9 MANIYAR YUNUS MAHMOOD ZAHMI M 50 Assam United Democratic Front

10 MOHMMAD KHAN AZIZ KHAN M 43 Samajwadi Party

11 ATHAWALE SADANAND PRALHADRAO M 39 Independent

12 GAJANAN BURMAL DODWADE M 36 Independent

13 NETAJI SITARAMJI KINAKE M 58 Independent

14 NANDKISHOR NARAYANRAO THAKARE M 34 Independent

15 PAWAR RAMESH GORSING M 53 Independent

16 PURUSHOTTAM DOMAJI BHAJGAWRE M 48 Independent

17 MADHUKAR SHIVDASPPA GORATE M 67 Independent

18 MANOJ JANARDAN PATIL M 38 Independent

19 MUKHADE SAU. LALITARAI SUBHASHRAO F 32 Independent

20 MESHRAM BANDU GANPAT M 40 Independent

21 MOHD. INAMURRAHIM MOHD. MUSA M 51 Independent

22 RAVINDRA ALIAS RAVIPAL MADHUKARRAO GANDHE M 32 Independent

23 RAJKUMAR NARAYAN BHUJADALE M 35 Independent

24 RATHOD DEVISING RAMA M 56 Independent

25 SD. VHIDODDIN SD. KRIMODDIN M 44 Independent

26 VISHNU KASINATH TAWKAR M 47 Independent

27 SURESH BABAN PEDEKAR M 33 Independent

28 SURESH BHIVA TARAL M 29 Independent

S13 15 MH HINGOLI 16-Apr-09 1 DR. B.D. CHAVHAN M 45 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 SUBHASH BAPURAO WANDHEDE M 46 Shivsena

3 SURYAKANTA JAIWANTRAO PATIL F 63 Nationalist Congress Party

4 UTTAMRAO DAGADUJI BHAGAT M 65 Prabuddha Republican Party

5 AJAS NOORMINYA M 32 Democratic Secular Party

6 NAIK MADHAVRAO BAHENARAO M 65 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

7 VINAYAK SHRIRAM BHISE M 27 Krantisena Maharashtra

8 GUNDEKAR SANJAY ADELU M 35 Independent

9 PATHAN SATTAR KASIMKHAN M 38 Independent

10 PACHPUTE RAMPRASAD KISHANRAO M 41 Independent

11 MD. A. MUJIM ANSARI A. M 33 Independent

S13 16 MH NANDED 16-Apr-09 1 KHATGAONK PATIL BHASKARRAO BAPURAO M 65 Indian National Congress

2 MD. MAKBUL SALIM HAJI MD. KHAJA M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 SAMBHAJI PAWAR M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 ALTAF AHMAD EAKBAL AHMAD M 43 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5 KHADE SANJAY WAMANRAO M 29 Prabuddha Republican Party

6 TIWARI RAMA BHAGIRAT F 40 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7 ADV. C.S. BAHETI M 56 Janata Party

8 MORE RAJESH EKNATHRAO M 34 Krantisena Maharashtra

9 A. RAEES A. JABBAR M 36 Ambedkar National Congress

10 SHINDE PREETI MADHUKAR F 27 Jan Surajya Shakti

11 SHUDHIR YASHWANT SURVE M 40 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

12 COM. ASHOK NAGORAO GHAYALE M 40 Independent

13 ANAND JADHAV HOTALKAR M 42 Independent

14 KOREWAR BALAJI NARSING M 38 Independent

15 JADHAV VISHNU MAROTI M 35 Independent

16 NAVGHARE ANAND PANDURANG M 48 Independent

17 NARAYAN SURYAVANSHI DOANGONKAR M 63 Independent

18 PATHAN ZAFAR ALI KHAN MAHEMUD ALI KHAN M 63 Independent

19 ‘AIDS MAN’ PRAKASH TATERAO LANDGE M 40 Independent

20 BHARANDE RAMCHANDRA GANGARAM M 31 Independent

21 ADV. RAMRAO PANDURANG WAGHMARE M 52 Independent

22 HANMANTE VIJAY CHANDRAO M 35 Independent

S13 17 MH PARBHANI 16-Apr-09 1 ADV. DUDHGAONKAR GANESHRAO NAGORAO M 64 Shivsena

2 RAJSHRI BABASAHEB JAMAGE F 46 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 WARPUDKAR SURESH AMBADASRAO M 60 Nationalist Congress Party

4 AJIM AHMED KHAN AJIJ KHAN M 32 Democratic Secular Party

5 ASHOKRAO BABARAO AMBHORE M 46 Ambedkar National Congress

6 KACHOLE MANAVENDRA SAWALARAM M 65 Swatantra Bharat Paksha

7 KALE VYANKATRAO BHIMRAO M 31 Krantisena Maharashtra

8 NAMDEV LIMBAJI KACHAVE M 68 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

9 BHAND GANGADHAR SAKHARAM M 70 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

10 MULE BABAN DATTARAO M 41 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

11 RUMALE TUKARAM DHONDIBA M 51 Prabuddha Republican Party

12 SAYYAD EKRAMODDIN SAYYAD MUNIRODDIN M 58 Lok Vikas Party

13 ASAD BIN ABDULLAHA BIN M 43 Independent

14 JAMEEL AHMED SK. AHMED M 44 Independent

15 DR. DESHMUKH KISHANRAO JANARDHANRAO (EX-SERVICEMAN) M 74 Independent

16 RATHOD RAMRAO DHANSING SIR M 58 Independent

17 SHINDE LAXMAN EKANATH M 36 Independent

18 SAMAR GORAKHNATH PAWAR M 41 Independent

19 SALVE SUDHAKAR UMAJI M 47 Independent

S14 2 MN OUTER MANIPUR 16-Apr-09 1 THANGSO BAITE M 56 Indian National Congress

2 D. LOLI ADANEE M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 L.B. SONA M 58 Nationalist Congress Party

4 M. JAMKHONGAM @ M. YAMKHONGAM HAOKIP M 49 Rashtriya Janata Dal

5 THANGKHANGIN M 53 Lok Jan Shakti Party

6 MANI CHARENAMEI M 50 Peoples Democratic Alliance

7 VALLEY ROSE HUNGYO F 53 Independent

8 MANGSHI (ROSE MANGSHI HAOKIP) F 63 Independent

9 LAMLALMOI GANGTE M 33 Independent

S15 1 ML SHILLONG 16-Apr-09 1 DALINGTON DYMPEP M 78 Communist Party of India

2 JOHN FILMORE KHARSHIING M 46 United Democratic Party

3 VINCENT H PALA M 41 Indian National Congress

4 P. B. M. BASAIAWMOIT M 60 Hill State People’s Democratic Party

5 MARTLE N.MUKHIM M 59 Meghalaya Democratic Party

6 DENIS SIANGSHAI M 44 Independent

7 TIEROD PASSAH M 45 Independent

S15 2 ML TURA 16-Apr-09 1 AGATHA K. SANGMA F 28 Nationalist Congress Party

2 DEBORA C. MARAK F 43 Indian National Congress

3 BOSTON MARAK M 28 A-Chik National Congress(Democratic)

4 ARLENE N. SANGMA F 53 Independent

S16 1 MZ MIZORAM 16-Apr-09 1 LALAWMPUIA CHHANGTE M 42 Nationalist Congress Party

2 C.L.RUALA M 72 Indian National Congress

3 DR. H. LALLUNGMUANA M 65 Independent

4 RUALPAWLA M 54 Independent

S17 1 NL NAGALAND 16-Apr-09 1 K. ASUNGBA SANGTAM M 62 Indian National Congress

2 C.M. CHANG M 65 Nagaland Peoples Front

3 DR. RILANTHUNG ODYUO M 39 All India Trinamool Congress

S18 1 OR BARGARH 16-Apr-09 1 RADHARANI PANDA F 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 SANJAY BHOI M 35 Indian National Congress

3 SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 DR. HAMID HUSSAIN M 54 Biju Janata Dal

5 NILADRI BEHARI PANDA M 29 Kosal Kranti Dal

6 SURENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL M 37 Independent

S18 2 OR SUNDARGARH 16-Apr-09 1 JUAL ORAM M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 JEROM DUNGDUNG M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 LIVNUS KINDO M 64 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

4 SALOMI MINZ F 48 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5 HEMANANDA BISWAL M 67 Indian National Congress

6 RAMA CHANDRA EKKA M 61 Jharkhand Disom Party

7 SAGAR SING MANKEE M 60 Kosal Kranti Dal

8 DALESWAR MAJHI M 58 Independent

9 MANSID EKKA M 63 Independent

S18 3 OR SAMBALPUR 16-Apr-09 1 AMARNATH PRADHAN M 51 Indian National Congress

2 GOBINDA RAM AGARWAL M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 ROHIT PUJARI M 35 Biju Janata Dal

4 SURENDRA LATH M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 ASHOK KUMAR NAIK M 53 Kosal Kranti Dal

6 BIJAYA KUMAR MAHANANDA M 35 Republican Party of India

7 MD. ALI HUSSAIN M 37 Independent

S18 10 OR BOLANGIR 16-Apr-09 1 KALIKESH NARAYAN SINGH DEO M 34 Biju Janata Dal

2 NARASINGHA MISHRA M 68 Indian National Congress

3 BALHAN SAGAR M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 SANGITA KUMARI SINGH DEO F 47 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 DINGAR KUMBHAR M 41 Samruddha Odisha

S18 11 OR KALAHANDI 16-Apr-09 1 NAKULA MAJHI M 66 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 BIKRAM KESHARI DEO M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 BHAKTA CHARAN DAS M 52 Indian National Congress

4 SUBASH CHANDRA NAYAK M 62 Biju Janata Dal

5 PARAMESWAR KAND M 47 Samajwadi Party

6 BALARAM HOTA M 33 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7 DAMBARUDHARA SUNANI M 34 Independent

8 MAHESWAR BHOI M 36 Independent

S18 12 OR NABARANGPUR 16-Apr-09 1 CHANDRADHWAJ MAJHI M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 DOMBURU MAJHI M 68 Biju Janata Dal

3 PARSURAM MAJHI M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 PRADEEP KUMAR MAJHI M 33 Indian National Congress

S18 13 OR KANDHAMAL 16-Apr-09 1 ASHOK SAHU M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 PAULA BALIARSING M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 RUDRAMADHAB RAY M 71 Biju Janata Dal

4 SUZIT KUMAR PADHI M 49 Indian National Congress

5 NAKUL NAYAK M 46 Samajwadi Party

6 AJIT KUMAR NAYAK M 26 Independent

7 KAMALA KANTA PANDEY M 64 Independent

8 GHORABANA BEHERA M 42 Independent

9 DEENABANDHU NAIK M 45 Independent

S18 19 OR ASKA 16-Apr-09 1 NITYANANDA PRADHAN M 65 Biju Janata Dal

2 RAMACHANDRA RATH M 63 Indian National Congress

3 SHANTI DEVI F 71 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 KRISHNA DALABEHERA M 43 Kalinga Sena

5 BIJAYA KUMAR MAHAPATRO M 56 Revolutionary Socialist Party

6 SURJYA NARAYAN SAHU M 37 Samruddha Odisha

7 KALICHARAN NAYAK M 53 Independent

8 DEBASIS MISRA M 48 Independent

9 K. SHYAM BABU SUBUDHI M 73 Independent

S18 20 OR BERHAMPUR 16-Apr-09 1 CHANDRA SEKHAR SAHU M 58 Indian National Congress

2 PABITRA GAMANGO M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 BHARAT PAIK M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 SIDHANT MAHAPATRA M 42 Biju Janata Dal

5 NIRAKAR BEHERA M 35 Kalinga Sena

6 ALI RAZA ZIADI M 30 Independent

7 KISHORE CHANDRA MAHARANA M 61 Independent

8 A. RAGHUNATH VARMA M 71 Independent

9 K. SHYAM BABU SUBUDHI M 73 Independent

S18 21 OR KORAPUT 16-Apr-09 1 UPENDRA MAJHI M 29 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 GIRIDHAR GAMANG M 56 Indian National Congress

3 JAYARAM PANGI M 53 Biju Janata Dal

4 PAPANNA MUTIKA M 65 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 KUMUDINI DISARI F 34 Samruddha Odisha

6 MEGHANADA SABAR M 40 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

S24 63 UP MAHARAJGANJ 16-Apr-09 1 AJEET MANI M 41 Samajwadi Party

2 GANESH SHANKER PANDEY M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 PANKAJ CHAUDHARY M 38 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 HARSH VARDHAN M 61 Indian National Congress

5 ABDWURRUF ANSARI M 45 National Lokhind Party

6 PAWAN KUMAR M 39 Republican Party of India (A)

7 RAM KISHUN NISHAD M 52 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

8 SATYA NARAYAN URF SATNARAYAN M 58 Bharatiya Eklavya Party

9 OMPRAKASH CHATURVEDI M 63 Independent

10 DILIP KUMAR M 28 Independent

11 RAM NIVAS M 37 Independent

12 LAL BIHARI M 42 Independent

13 CHAUDHARY SANJAY SINGH PATEL M 29 Independent

14 SHYAM SUNDER DAS CHAURASIA M 28 Independent

15 HANUMAN M 51 Independent

S24 64 UP GORAKHPUR 16-Apr-09 1 ADITYANATH M 36 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 MANOJ TIWARI MRIDUL M 39 Samajwadi Party

3 LALCHAND NISHAD M 67 Indian National Congress

4 VINAY SHANKAR TIWARI M 41 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 AMAN M 35 Ambedkar Samaj Party

6 JOKHAN PRASAD M 46 Eklavya Samaj Party

7 DAYASHANKAR NISHAD M 38 Apna Dal

8 RAJBAHADUR M 28 Indian Justice Party

9 RAJMANI M 46 Bharatiya Eklavya Party

10 RAJESH SAHANI M 44 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

11 SRINATH M 29 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

12 AJAY KUMAR M 40 Independent

13 AWADHESH SINGH M 32 Independent

14 OMPRAKASH SINGH M 43 Independent

15 GOVIND M 43 Independent

16 CHHEDILAL M 59 Independent

17 NIRANJAN PRASAD M 35 Independent

18 NEERAJ YADAV M 31 Independent

19 DR. BRIJESH MANI TRIPATHI M 44 Independent

20 MANOJ TIWARI M 30 Independent

21 RAKESH KUMAR M 38 Independent

22 RAJAN YADAV M.B.A. M 31 Independent

23 RAMHIT NISHAD M 53 Independent

24 LAL BAHADUR M 68 Independent

25 VINOD SHUKLA M 29 Independent

26 HARISHCHANDRA M 42 Independent

S24 65 UP KUSHI NAGAR 16-Apr-09 1 BRAMHA SHANKER M 56 Samajwadi Party

2 KU. RATANJEET PRATAP NARAYAN SINGH M 45 Indian National Congress

3 VIJAY DUBEY M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 SWAMI PRASAD MAURYA M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 ANIL M 43 Republican Party of India (A)

6 KISHOR KUMAR M 40 Indian Peace Party

7 K KUMAR M 56 Purvanchal Rajya Banao Dal

8 JANGI M 55 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

9 DHEERAJ SHEKHAR SHRIWASTAWA M 49 Rashtriya Lokwadi Party

10 BABU LAL M 40 Bharatiya Republican Paksha

11 MATIULLAH M 43 National Lokhind Party

12 MADAN LAL M 46 Maulik Adhikar Party

13 AMEERUDDIN M 31 Independent

14 JAGDISH M 57 Independent

15 JAI GOVIND M 35 Independent

16 DAROGA M 37 Independent

17 RAMESH M 35 Independent

18 RAM BRIKSH M 54 Independent

S24 66 UP DEORIA 16-Apr-09 1 GORAKH PRASAD JAISWAL M 72 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 BALESHWAR YADAV M 55 Indian National Congress

3 MOHAN SINGH M 58 Samajwadi Party

4 SHRI PRAKASH MANI TRIPATHI M 64 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 GANGA PRASAD KUSHWAHA M 70 Purvanchal Rajya Banao Dal

6 JAGDISH KUMAR VERMA M 36 Lokpriya Samaj Party

7 DHARMENDRA KUMAR M 33 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

8 MOTI LAL KUSHWAHA SHASTRI M 59 Rashtriya Samanta Dal

9 SAFAYAT ALI M 51 Peace Party

10 SARITA F 27 Ambedkar Samaj Party

11 RAM KISHOR YADAV ALIAS VIDHAYAK M 51 Independent

12 VIJAY JUAATHA M 42 Independent

S24 67 UP BANSGAON 16-Apr-09 1 KAMLESH PASWAN M 33 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 MAHA BEER PRASAD M 66 Indian National Congress

3 SHARADA DEVI F 59 Samajwadi Party

4 SHREE NATH JI M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 CHANDRIKA M 29 Rashtriya Jan-vadi Party (Krantikari)

6 RAMA SHANKER M 37 Peace Party

7 RAM PRAVESH PRASAD M 37 Eklavya Samaj Party

8 HARILAL M 32 Bahujan Uday Manch

9 KU. KUNJAWATI F 36 Independent

10 MANOJ KUMAR M 29 Independent

11 RADHEYSHYAM M 35 Independent

12 RAMKAWAL M 56 Independent

13 RAMSAKAL M 32 Independent

14 RAMA PASWAN M 33 Independent

15 VINAI KUMAR M 33 Independent

S24 68 UP LALGANJ 16-Apr-09 1 DAROGA PRASAD SAROJ M 60 Samajwadi Party

2 NEELAM SONKAR F 33 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 DR. BALIRAM M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 HAREE PRASAD SONKER M 50 Communist Party of India

5 MANBHAWAN M 32 Bharatiya Republican Paksha

6 RAM DAYAL ALIAS MOHAN M 32 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

7 ACHCHHELAL M 42 Independent

8 URMILA DEVI F 27 Independent

9 CHANDRA RAM ALIAS CHANDU SAROJ M 36 Independent

10 DHARMRAJ M 55 Independent

11 SUKHNAYAN M 29 Independent

S24 69 UP AZAMGARH 16-Apr-09 1 AKBAR AHMAD DUMPY M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 ARUN KUMAR SINGH M 63 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3 DURGA PRASAD YADAV M 56 Samajwadi Party

4 RAMAKANT YADAV M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH M 49 Indian National Congress

6 JAI JAI RAM PRAJAPATI M 36 Lokpriya Samaj Party

7 RAM BHAROS M 34 Bahujan Uday Manch

8 VINOD M 33 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

9 USMANA FARUQEE F 27 Independent

10 KEDAR NATH GIRI M 49 Independent

11 KHAIRUL BASHAR M 56 Independent

12 DR. JAVED AKHTAR M 54 Independent

13 DAAN BAHADUR YADAV M 54 Independent

14 YADUNATH M 31 Independent

15 RAM UJAGIR M 45 Independent

16 RAM SINGH M 35 Independent

S24 70 UP GHOSI 16-Apr-09 1 ATUL KUMAR SINGH ANJAN M 55 Communist Party of India

2 ARSHAD JAMAL ANSARI M 43 Samajwadi Party

3 DARA SINGH CHAUHAN M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 RAM IQBAL M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 SUDHA RAI F 54 Indian National Congress

6 AKHILESH M 43 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

7 KAILASH YADAV M 46 Peace Party

8 RAMESH ALIAS RAJU SINGH M 41 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

9 RAM BADAN KAUL M 60 Bahujan Shakty

10 LALJI RAJBHAR M 44 Bharatiya Samaj Dal

11 HARISH CHANDRA M 62 Rashtriya Jan-vadi Party (Krantikari)

12 ASHOK KUMAR M 27 Independent

13 ZAKIR HUSSAIN M 45 Independent

14 PALAKDHARI M 41 Independent

15 RAKESH M 34 Independent

16 SUJIT KUMAR M 34 Independent

S24 71 UP SALEMPUR 16-Apr-09 1 DR. BHOLA PANDEY M 55 Indian National Congress

2 RAMASHANKAR RAJBHAR M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 HARIKEWAL M 71 Samajwadi Party

4 IZHAR M 48 Peace Party

5 ZUBAIR M 39 Nelopa(United)

6 JANG BAHADUR M 50 Bharatiya Samaj Dal

7 FATE BAHADUR M 35 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

8 RAVISHANKAR SINGH “PAPPU” M 38 Janata Dal (United)

9 RAMCHARAN M 72 People’s Democratic Front

10 RAMDAYAL M 57 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

11 RAMNAWAMI YADAV M 37 Samajwadi Jan Parishad

12 RAMASHRAY CHAUHAN M 55 Moderate Party

13 SRIRAM M 50 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

14 HARISHCHAND M 48 Eklavya Samaj Party

15 AMEER M 53 Independent

16 PARASURAM M 56 Independent

17 FULENDRA M 40 Independent

18 MAN JI M 50 Independent

19 MAHESH M 70 Independent

20 RAJENDRA ALIAS RAJAN M 33 Independent

21 VINDHACHAL M 44 Independent

22 SHAILENDRA M 36 Independent

23 SATISH M 37 Independent

24 SARVDAMAN M 26 Independent

25 SANJAY M 36 Independent

S24 72 UP BALLIA 16-Apr-09 1 NEERAJ SHEKHAR M 40 Samajwadi Party

2 MANOJ SINHA M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 SANGRAM SINGH YADAV M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 ARVIND KUMAR GOND M 30 Gondvana Gantantra Party

5 KANHAIYA PRAJAPATI M 44 Rashtriya Samanta Dal

6 NARAYAN RAJBHAR M 32 Bharatiya Samaj Dal

7 RAJESH M 40 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

8 RAMSAKAL M 48 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

9 ANANT M 36 Independent

10 GANGADYAL M 48 Independent

11 DIWAKAR M 38 Independent

12 RAMJI M 49 Independent

13 LALBABU M 36 Independent

14 SHESHNATH M 40 Independent

15 SHANKER RAM RAWAT M 43 Independent

16 HARIHAR M 73 Independent

S24 74 UP MACHHLISHAHR 16-Apr-09 1 KAMLA KANT GAUTAM (K.K. GAUTAM) M 66 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 TUFANI SAROJ M 48 Samajwadi Party

3 RAJ BAHADUR M 66 Indian National Congress

4 VIDYASAGAR SONKER M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 KRISHNA SEWAK SONKER M 48 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

6 RAM CHARITRA M 41 Apna Dal

7 VIJAYEE RAM M 38 Ambedkar Samaj Party

8 SHEOMURAT RAM M 71 Gondvana Gantantra Party

9 SUKHRAJ DINKAR M 51 Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

10 SUSHMA F 29 Rashtriya Agraniye Dal

11 DINESH KUMAR M 31 Independent

12 BALJIT M 59 Independent

13 RAM DAWAR GAUTAM M 41 Independent

14 VINOD KUMAR M 40 Independent

15 SHYAM BIHARI KANNAUJIYA M 39 Independent

16 SOHAN M 46 Independent

S24 75 UP GHAZIPUR 16-Apr-09 1 AFZAL ANSARI M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 PRABHUNATH M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 RADHEY MOHAN SINGH M 43 Samajwadi Party

4 SURAJ RAM BAGI M 52 Communist Party of India

5 ISHWARI PRASAD KUSHAWAHA M 48 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6 DINESH M 42 Rashtriya Samanta Dal

7 NANDLAL M 67 Ambedkar Samaj Party

8 SHYAM NARAYAN M 54 Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

9 SATISH SHANKAR JAISAWAL M 28 National Lokhind Party

10 SARAJU M 67 Lok Dal

11 SURENDRA M 43 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

12 ANIL M 32 Independent

13 ASHOK (DR.ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) M 54 Independent

14 BRAJENDRA NATH URF BIJENDRA M 66 Independent

15 RAJESH M 37 Independent

S24 76 UP CHANDAULI 16-Apr-09 1 KAILASH NATH SINGH YADAV M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 JAWAHAR LAL JAISAWAL M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 RAMKISHUN M 49 Samajwadi Party

4 SHAILENDRA KUMAR M 40 Indian National Congress

5 CHANDRASHEKHAR M 34 Republican Party of India

6 JAWAHIR M 48 Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party

7 JOKHU M 45 Peoples Democratic Forum

8 TULASI M 42 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

9 RAJNATH M 35 Bharatiya Republican Paksha

10 RAJESH SINGH M 27 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

11 RAMAWATAR SHARMA ADVOCATE M 38 Maulik Adhikar Party

12 RAMSEWAK YADAV M 46 Rashtriya Lokhit Party

13 LALLAN M 49 Indian Justice Party

14 SURENDRA PRATAP M 36 Jai Bharat Samanta Party

15 DEVAROO M 40 Independent

16 MUNNI LAL M 66 Independent

17 SURAFARAJ AHMAD M 29 Independent

18 HARI LAL M 52 Independent

S24 77 UP VARANASI 16-Apr-09 1 AJAY RAI M 36 Samajwadi Party

2 MUKHTAR ANSARI M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI M 73 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 DR. RAJESH KUMAR MISHRA M 48 Indian National Congress

5 AWADHESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA M 43 Rashtriya Samanta Dal

6 USHA SINGH F 45 Rashtriya Agraniye Dal

7 KISHUN LAL M 59 Indian Justice Party

8 VIJAY PRAKASH JAISWAL M 43 Apna Dal

9 ER. SHYAM LAL VISHWAKARMA M 61 Maulik Adhikar Party

10 ANAND KUMAR AMBASTHA M 36 Independent

11 NARENDRA NATH DUBEY ADIG M 36 Independent

12 PARVEZ QUADIR KHAN M 38 Independent

13 PUSHP RAJ SAHU M 47 Independent

14 RAJESH BHARTI M 33 Independent

15 SATYA PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA M 37 Independent

S24 79 UP MIRZAPUR 16-Apr-09 1 ANIL KUMAR MAURYA M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 ANURAG SINGH M 42 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 BAL KUMAR PATEL M 48 Samajwadi Party

4 RAMESH DUBEY M 66 Indian National Congress

5 AJAY SHANKER M 33 Gondwana Mukti Sena

6 KAILASH M 48 Bahujan Shakty

7 KHELADI M 58 Gondvana Gantantra Party

8 JAGDISH M 49 Apna Dal

9 PREM CHAND M 45 Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party

10 RADHE SHYAM M 58 Bharatiya Republican Paksha

11 LALJI M 48 Rashtriya Agraniye Dal

12 LALTI DEVI F 54 Vikas Party

13 SHANKAR M 38 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

14 SHYAM LAL M 41 Eklavya Samaj Party

15 MOHD. SAGIR M 41 National Loktantrik Party

16 TRILOK NATH VERMA M 61 Indian Justice Party

17 ANOOP KUMAR M 34 Independent

18 KRISHNA CHAND M 40 Independent

19 KRISHNA CHAND SHUKLA M 40 Independent

20 CHHABEELE M 41 Independent

21 DANGAR M 52 Independent

22 DULARI F 61 Independent

23 MANIK CHAND M 37 Independent

24 MUNNA LAL M 34 Independent

25 RAM GOPAL M 53 Independent

26 RAM RAJ M 37 Independent

27 HANS KUMAR M 37 Independent

S24 80 UP ROBERTSGANJ 16-Apr-09 1 PAKAURI LAL M 57 Samajwadi Party

2 RAM ADHAR JOSEPH M 43 Indian National Congress

3 RAM CHANDRA TYAGI M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 RAM SHAKAL M 47 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 GULAB M 31 Peoples Democratic Forum

6 CHANDRA SHEKHAR M 34 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

7 MUNNI DEVI F 42 Rashtriya Samanta Dal

8 RAMESH KUMAR M 31 Apna Dal

9 SHRAWAN KUMAR M 41 Rashtrawadi Sena

10 RAMBRIKSHA M 39 Independent

S26 1 CG SARGUJA 16-Apr-09 1 DHAN SINGH DHURVE M 38 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 BAL SINGH M 38 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3 BHANU PRATAP SINGH M 42 Indian National Congress

4 MURARILAL SINGH M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 ANOOP MINJ M 28 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

6 KUMAIT B.D.O. M 64 Janata Dal (United)

7 BHUPNATH SINGH MARAVI M 43 Gondvana Gantantra Party

8 RAMDEO LAKRA M 32 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

9 RAMNATH CHERWA M 36 Shoshit Samaj Dal

10 SOMNATH BHAGAT M 46 Lok Jan Shakti Party

11 AMRIT SINGH MARAVI M 35 Independent

12 JUGESHWAR M 29 Independent

13 DHANESHWAR SINGH M 39 Independent

14 SARJU XESS ORANW M 43 Independent

15 SUNIL KUMAR SINGH KANHARE M 27 Independent

16 SURAJ DEO SINGH KHAIRWAR M 35 Independent

S26 2 CG RAIGARH 16-Apr-09 1 BAHADUR SINGH RATHIA M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 VISHNU DEO SAI M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 HRIDAYARAM RATHIYA M 43 Indian National Congress

4 DARSHAN SIDAR M 32 Gondvana Gantantra Party

5 MEERA DEVI SINGH TIRKEY F 39 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

6 SHIRACHAND EKKA M 29 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

7 AMRIT TIRKEY M 30 Independent

8 KAMRISH SINGH GOND M 59 Independent

9 SANJAY TIRKEY M 29 Independent

10 HALDHAR RAM SIDAR M 42 Independent

S26 3 CG JANJGIR-CHAMPA 16-Apr-09 1 SHRIMATI KAMLA DEVI PATLE F 43 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 DAURAM RATNAKAR M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 DR.SHIVKUMAR DAHARIYA M 45 Indian National Congress

4 B.R. CHAUHAN M 59 Republican Party of India (A)

5 NEELKANTH WARE M 59 Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party

6 PREM SHANKAR MAHILANGE URF PREM INDIA M 39 Lok Jan Shakti Party

7 SANJEEV KUMAR KHARE M 26 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

8 ANANDRAM GILHARE M 35 Independent

9 CHAITRAM SURYAVANSHI M 62 Independent

10 DR.CHHAVILAL RATRE M 55 Independent

11 MAYARAM NAT M 50 Independent

12 RAMCHARAN PRADHAN ADHIWAKTA M 51 Independent

S26 4 CG KORBA 16-Apr-09 1 KARUNA SHUKLA F 59 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 CHARANDAS MAHANT M 54 Indian National Congress

3 VIJAY LAXMI SHARMA F 41 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 KEDARNATH RAJWADE M 28 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

5 CHAITI DEVI MAHANT F 49 Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party

6 BUDHWAR SINGH UIKEY M 34 Rashtriya Gondvana Party

7 DR. VIPIN SINHA M 40 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

8 SANGEETA NIRMALKAR F 32 Bharatiya Pichhra Dal

9 HIRASINGH MARKAAM M 74 Gondvana Gantantra Party

10 GEND DAS MAHANT M 35 Independent

11 CHARAN DAS M 25 Independent

12 PAWAN KUMAR M 38 Independent

13 FULESHWAR PRASAD SURJAIHA M 75 Independent

14 RAMDAYAL ORAON M 49 Independent

15 RAMLAKHAN KASHI M 68 Independent

16 SHAMBHU PRASAD SHARMA ADHIWAKTA M 62 Independent

17 SATRUPA F 37 Independent

18 SANTOSH BANJARE M 25 Independent

S26 5 CG BILASPUR 16-Apr-09 1 DILIP SINGH JUDEV M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 ADVOCATE T.R.NIRALA M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 DR.RENU JOGI F 56 Indian National Congress

4 UTTAM PRASAD DANSENA M 27 Sunder Samaj Party

5 DR.GOJU PAUL M 40 Republican Party of India (A)

6 DR.BALMUKUND SINGH MARAVI M 41 Gondvana Gantantra Party

7 BALARAM SAHU M 46 Bharatiya Pichhra Dal

8 MUKESH KUMAR SAHU M 32 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

9 SAPNA CHAKRABORTY F 37 Lok Jan Shakti Party

10 ARJUN SHRIVAS GANGUAA M 63 Independent

11 ANUJ DHRITLAHRE M 34 Independent

12 ABDUL HAMID SIDDIQUE M 43 Independent

13 ASHOK SHRIVASTAVA M 37 Independent

14 UMESH SINGH M 31 Independent

15 TUKLAL GARG M 40 Independent

16 DAYA DAS LAHRE M 65 Independent

17 DR.DAYA RAM DAYAL M 60 Independent

18 DILIP KUMAR M 30 Independent

19 DILIP GUPTA M 38 Independent

20 DILIP SINGH M 41 Independent

21 MANOJ KUMAR BIRKO M 34 Independent

22 RAMESH AHUJA M 43 Independent

23 RAMESH KUMAR LAHARE M 36 Independent

24 RAJENDRA SAHU M 29 Independent

25 RAJESH PRATAP M 32 Independent

26 RAMBILAS SHARMA M 52 Independent

27 B.P.VISWAKARMA M 57 Independent

28 SHYAM BIHARI TRIVEDI M 56 Independent

S26 6 CG RAJNANDGAON 16-Apr-09 1 DEVWRAT SINGH M 39 Indian National Congress

2 PRADHUMAN NETAM M 32 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 MADHUSUDAN YADAV M 38 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 GANGARAM NISHAD M 48 Eklavya Samaj Party

5 NARAD KHOTHALIYA M 48 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

6 AJAY JAISWAL M 35 Independent

7 AJAY PALI M 32 Independent

8 JALAL MOHAMMAD QURESHI M 45 Independent

9 DERHARAM LODHI M 37 Independent

10 DILIP RATHOR SAMPADAK M 40 Independent

11 BHAG CHAND VAIDHYA M 48 Independent

12 MADAN YADAV M 34 Independent

13 MANGAL DAS BANGARE M 52 Independent

14 D.R.YADAV PRACHARYA M 66 Independent

S26 7 CG DURG 16-Apr-09 1 PRADEEP CHOUBEY M 55 Indian National Congress

2 RAGHUNANDAN SAHU M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 SAROJ PANDEY F 40 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 DEVIDAS KURRE M 43 Chandigarh Vikas Party

5 DR. PANKAJ GOSOMI (PANDIT) M 37 Republican Party of India

6 ANAND GAUTAM M 35 Independent

7 TARACHAND SAHU M 30 Independent

8 TARACHAND SAHU M 66 Independent

9 TARACHAND SAHU M 62 Independent

10 MASOOD KHAN M 43 Independent

11 RATAN KUMAR KSHETRAPAL M 61 Independent

12 RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHU M 38 Independent

13 LAXMAN PRASAD M 31 Independent

14 GURU DADA LOKESH MAHARAJ M 56 Independent

15 SHITKARAN MHILWAR M 40 Independent

S26 8 CG RAIPUR 16-Apr-09 1 BHUPESH BAGHEL M 47 Indian National Congress

2 RAMESH BAIS M 61 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 VIDHYADEVI SAHU F 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 ER. ASHOK TAMRAKAR M 56 Jai Chhattisgarh Party

5 IMRRAN PASHA M 33 Loktantrik Samajwadi Party

6 P.R. KHUNTE M 54 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

7 MADHUSUDAN MISHRA M 49 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

8 SHAILENDRA BANJARE (SHAKTIPUTRA) M 34 Shakti Sena (Bharat Desh)

9 SHANKAR LAL VARANDANI M 45 Pyramid Party of India

10 HARGUN MEGHWANI M 56 Akhil Bhartiya Sindhu Samajwadi Party

11 ARUN HARPAL M 35 Independent

12 JAFAR HUSSAIN, BABABHAI (PURVA MUTVALLI) M 57 Independent

13 MOH. JILANI ALIAS TANI M 30 Independent

14 NAND KISHOR DEEP M 48 Independent

15 NARESH BHISHMDEV DHIDHI M 31 Independent

16 NAVIN GUPTA M 35 Independent

17 NARAD NISHAD M 33 Independent

18 PRAVEEN JAIN M 44 Independent

19 BHARAT BHUSHAN PANDEY M 45 Independent

20 MATHURA PRASAD TANDON M 42 Independent

21 YASHWANT SAHU M 35 Independent

22 RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHU M 38 Independent

23 RAJENDRA SINGH THAKUR (ADVOCATE) M 34 Independent

24 RAMKRISHNA VERMA M 49 Independent

25 RAMCHARAN YADAV M 33 Independent

26 SHOBHARAM GILHARE M 38 Independent

27 SIYARAM DHRITLAHARE M 34 Independent

28 SMT. SUSIL BAI BANJARE F 36 Independent

29 SYED RASHID ALI M 62 Independent

30 SANJAY BAGHEL M 29 Independent

31 HAIDAR BHATI M 38 Independent

32 SHRIKANT KASER M 41 Independent

S26 9 CG MAHASAMUND 16-Apr-09 1 CHANDULAL SAHU (CHANDU BHAIYA) M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 MOTILAL M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 MOTILAL SAHU M 44 Indian National Congress

4 DR. ANAND MATAWALE (GURUJI) M 38 Lok Bharati

5 KIRAN KUMAR DHRUW M 44 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

6 BAUDDH KUMAR KAUSHIK M 37 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party

7 DR. LATA MARKAM F 26 Republican Party of India (A)

8 SHRIDHAR CHANDRAKAR (PATEL) M 40 Apna Dal

9 KHEDUBHARTI “SATYESH” M 33 Independent

10 CHAMPA LAL PATEL M 43 Independent

11 NARENDRA BHISHMDEV DHIDHI M 34 Independent

12 NARAYANDAS INQALAB GANDHI M 63 Independent

13 BHARAT DIWAN M 29 Independent

14 RAMPRASAD CHAUHAN M 46 Independent

15 SULTANSINGH SATNAM M 58 Independent

S26 10 CG BASTAR 16-Apr-09 1 AYTU RAM MANDAVI M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 BALIRAM KASHYAP M 73 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 MANISH KUNJAM M 42 Communist Party of India

4 SHANKAR SODI M 44 Indian National Congress

5 CHANDRA SHEKHAR DHRUV (SHEKHAR) M 42 Independent

6 MAYARAM NETAM ALIAS (FULSING SILADAR) M 60 Independent

7 SUBHASH CHANDRA MOURYA M 35 Independent

S26 11 CG KANKER 16-Apr-09 1 SMT. PHOOLO DEVI NETAM F 35 Indian National Congress

2 MIRA SALAM F 32 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 SOHAN POTAI M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 JALSINGH SHORI M 30 Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party

5 N. R. BHUARYA M 50 Gondwana Mukti Sena

6 BHOM LAL M 59 Apna Dal

7 MAYARAM NAGWANSHI M 48 Gondvana Gantantra Party

8 G. R. RANA M 62 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

9 DEVCHAND MATLAM M 31 Independent

10 PRAFUL MANDAVI M 35 Independent

11 MAYARAM NETAM (FULSINGH SILEDAR) M 60 Independent

S27 4 JH CHATRA 16-Apr-09 1 ARUN KUMAR YADAV M 41 Janata Dal (United)

2 DHIRAJ PRASAD SAHU M 50 Indian National Congress

3 NAGMANI M 46 Rashtriya Janata Dal

4 SUGAN MAHTO M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 KESHWAR YADAV M 47 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6 PARAS NATH MANJHI M 58 Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal

7 K.P. SHARMA M 62 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

8 SURENDRA YADAV M 36 Jharkhand Party

9 INDER SINGH NAMDHARI M 62 Independent

10 DHIRENDRA AGRAWAL M 53 Independent

11 RATNESH KUMAR GUPTA M 47 Independent

S27 5 JH KODARMA 16-Apr-09 1 TILAKDHARI PD. SINGH M 65 Indian National Congress

2 PRANAV KUMAR VERMA M 29 Rashtriya Janata Dal

3 LAXAMAN SAWARNKAR M 63 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 BISHNU PRASAD BHAIYA M 47 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

5 SABHAPATI KUSHWAHA M 61 Bahujan Samaj Party

6 UMESH CHANDRA TRIVEDI M 41 Jharkhand Party

7 PRAMESHWAR YADAV M 49 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

8 BABULAL MARANDI M 51 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

9 RAJKISHOR PRASAD MODI M 54 Jharkhand Vikas Dal

10 RAJ KUMAR YADAV M 37 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

11 HADTAL DAS M 43 Bahujan Shakty

12 ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA M 35 Independent

13 KAMAL DAS M 35 Independent

14 CHANDRA DHARI MAHTO M 28 Independent

15 MANJOOR ALAM ANSARI M 45 Independent

16 LAXAMAN DAS M 37 Independent

S27 11 JH KHUNTI 16-Apr-09 1 KARIYA MUNDA M 72 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 NEIL TIRKEY M 55 Indian National Congress

3 MARSHAL BARLA M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 THEODORE KIRO M 58 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

5 NITIMA BODRA BARI F 41 Jharkhand Party (Naren)

6 NISHIKANT HORO M 55 Jharkhand Party

7 ANAND KUJUR M 27 Independent

8 UMBULAN TOPNO M 49 Independent

9 KARLUS BHENGRA M 41 Independent

S27 12 JH LOHARDAGA 16-Apr-09 1 JOKHAN BHAGAT M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 RAMESHWAR ORAON M 63 Indian National Congress

3 SUDARSHAN BHAGAT M 40 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 DEOSHARAN BHAGAT M 45 All Jharkhand Students Union

5 BAHURA EKKA M 61 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

6 BHUNESHWAR LOHRA M 42 Lok Jan Vikas Morcha

7 RAMA KHALKHO F 38 Jharkhand Janadikhar Manch

8 ARJUN BHAGAT M 60 Independent

9 ETWA ORAON M 45 Independent

10 GOPAL ORAON M 56 Independent

11 CHAMRA LINDA M 39 Independent

12 JAI PRAKASH BHAGAT M 36 Independent

13 NAWAL KISHOR SINGH M 51 Independent

14 PADMA BARAIK F 25 Independent

15 SUKHDEO LOHRA M 69 Independent

S27 13 JH PALAMAU 16-Apr-09 1 KAMESHWAR BAITHA M 56 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

2 GHURAN RAM M 42 Rashtriya Janata Dal

3 RADHA KRISHNA KISHORE M 52 Janata Dal (United)

4 HIRA RAM TUPHANI M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 GANESH RAM M 56 Jharkhand Party

6 JAWAHAR PASWAN M 48 AJSU Party

7 NANDDEV RAM M 70 Jharkhand Party (Naren)

8 PARVATI DEVI F 34 Manav Mukti Morcha

9 PRABHAT KUMAR M 31 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

10 RAJU GUIDE MAJHI M 30 Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal

11 RAM NARESH RAM M 36 Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

12 BIRBAL RAM M 28 Rashtriya Lok Dal

13 SATYENDRA KUMAR PASWAN M 30 Bharatiya Samta Samaj Party

14 SUSHMA MEHTA F 31 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

15 JITENDRA RAM M 31 Independent

16 NARESH KUMAR PASWAN M 29 Independent

17 BRAJMOHAN RAM M 48 Independent

18 BHOLA RAM M 32 Independent

19 MUNESHWAR RAM M 58 Independent

20 RAM PRASAD RAM M 58 Independent

21 SUNESHWAR BAITHA M 54 Independent

S27 14 JH HAZARIBAGH 16-Apr-09 1 KISHOR KUMAR PANDEY M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD MEHTA M 64 Communist Party of India

3 YASHWANT SINHA M 71 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 SHIVLAL MAHTO M 34 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

5 SAURABH NARAIN SINGH M 34 Indian National Congress

6 CHANDRA PRAKASH CHOUDHARY M 40 All Jharkhand Students Union

7 DIGAMBER KU. MEHTA M 42 Samajwadi Party

8 BRAJ KISHORE JAISWAL M 67 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

9 DEONATH MAHTO M 29 Independent

10 MAHENDRA KISHORE MEHTA M 38 Independent

11 MD. MOINUDDIN AHMED M 32 Independent

12 LALAN PRASAD M 34 Independent

13 SNEHLATA DEVI F 49 Independent

U01 1 AN ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS 16-Apr-09 1 SMTI. R. S. UMA BHARATHY F 44 Nationalist Congress Party

2 SHRI. KULDEEP RAI SHARMA M 41 Indian National Congress

3 SHRI. P. R. GANESHAN M 71 Rashtriya Janata Dal

4 SHRI TAPAN KUMAR BEPARI M 51 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5 SHRI. BISHNU PADA RAY M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party

6 SHRI. M. S. MOHAN M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

7 SHRI. N. K. P. NAIR M 54 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

8 SHRI. PRADEEP KUMAR EKKA M 37 Jharkhand Disom Party

9 SHRI. T. ALI M 37 Independent

10 DR. THANKACHAN M 50 Independent

11 SHRI. VAKIATH VALAPPIL KHALID M 40 Independent

U06 1 LD LAKSHADWEEP 16-Apr-09 1 MUHAMMED HAMDULLA SAYEED A.B M 26 Indian National Congress

2 DR. P. POOKUNHIKOYA M 60 Nationalist Congress Party

3 DR. K P MUTHUKOYA M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 LUKMANUL HAKEEM M 32 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

S14 1 MN INNER MANIPUR 22-Apr-09 1 DR. THOKCHOM MEINYA M 58 Indian National Congress

2 THOUNAOJAM CHAOBA M 70 Manipur People’s Party

3 MOIRANGTHEM NARA M 58 Communist Party of India

4 WAHENGBAM NIPAMACHA SINGH M 78 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 L. KSHETRANI DEVI F 50 Rashtriya Bahujan Congress Party

6 ABDUL RAHMAN M 58 Independent

7 NONGMAITHEM HOMENDRO SINGH M 45 Independent

S01 23 AP KAKINADA 23-Apr-09 1 DOMMETI SUDHAKAR M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 M.M.PALLAMRAJU M 46 Indian National Congress

3 BIKKINA VISWESWARA RAO M 34 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 VASAMSETTY SATYA M 44 Telugu Desam

5 ALURI VIJAYA LAKSHMI F 64 Lok Satta Party

6 UDAYA KUMAR KONDEPUDI M 36 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

7 GALI SATYAVATHI F 40 Republican Party of India

8 GIDLA SIMHACHALAM M 50 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

9 CHALAMALASETTY SUNIL M 39 Praja Rajyam Party

10 NAMALA SATYANARAYANA M 45 Rajyadhikara Party

11 N.PALLAMRAJU M 52 Ajeya Bharat Party

12 BUGATHA BANGARRAO M 48 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

13 AKAY SURYANARAYANA M 50 Independent

14 CHAGANTI SURYA NARAYANA MURTHY M 44 Independent

15 DANAM LAZAR BABU M 42 Independent

16 BADAMPUDI BABURAO M 51 Independent

S01 24 AP AMALAPURAM 23-Apr-09 1 KOMMABATTULA UMA MAHESWARA RAO M 65 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 GEDDAM SAMPADA RAO M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 DOCTOR GEDELA VARALAKSHMI F 55 Telugu Desam

4 G.V.HARSHA KUMAR M 50 Indian National Congress

5 AKUMARTHI SURYANARAYANA M 50 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

6 KIRAN KUMAR BINEPE M 43 Praja Bharath Party

7 P.V.CHAKRAVARTHI M 54 Republican Party of India (Khobragade)

8 POTHULA PRAMEELA DEVI F 55 Praja Rajyam Party

9 BHEEMARAO RAMJI MUTHABATHULA M 39 Pyramid Party of India

10 MASA RAMADASU M 46 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

11 YALANGI RAMESH M 45 Independent

S01 25 AP RAJAHMUNDRY 23-Apr-09 1 ARUNA KUMAR VUNDAVALLI M 54 Indian National Congress

2 M. MURALI MOHAN M 68 Telugu Desam

3 VAJRAPU KOTESWARA RAO M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 SOMU VEERRAJU M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 UPPALAPATI VENKATA KRISHNAM RAJU M 69 Praja Rajyam Party

6 DATLA RAYA JAGAPATHI RAJU M 50 Pyramid Party of India

7 DR. PALADUGU CHANDRA MOULI M 69 Lok Satta Party

8 MEDAPATI PAPIREDDY M 30 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party

9 MEDA SRINIVAS M 39 Rashtriya Praja Congress (Secular)

10 PARAMATA GANESWARA RAO M 46 Independent

11 MUSHINI RAMAKRISHNA RAO M 51 Independent

12 VASAMSETTY NAGESWARA RAO M 46 Independent

13 SANABOINA SUBHALAKSHMI F 44 Independent

S01 26 AP NARSAPURAM 23-Apr-09 1 KALIDINDI VISWANADHA RAJU M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 THOTA SITA RAMA LAKSHMI F 59 Telugu Desam

3 BAPIRAJU KANUMURU M 61 Indian National Congress

4 BHUPATHIRAJU SRINIVASA VARMA M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 ALLURI YUGANDHARA RAJU M 44 Pyramid Party of India

6 GUBBALA TAMMAIAH M 61 Praja Rajyam Party

7 NAVUNDRU RAJENDRA PRASAD M 44 Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party

8 MANORAMA SANKU F 62 Lok Satta Party

9 M V R RAJU M 35 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

10 KALIDINDI BHIMARAJU M 73 Independent

S01 27 AP ELURU 23-Apr-09 1 KAVURI SAMBASIVA RAO M 65 Indian National Congress

2 KODURI VENKATA SUBBA RAJU M 46 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 PILLELLLI SUNIL M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 MAGANTI VENKATESWARA RAO(BABU) M 49 Telugu Desam

5 Y.V.S.V. PRASADA RAO (YERNENI PRASADA RAO) M 61 Pyramid Party of India

6 KOLUSU PEDA REDDAIAH YADAV M 67 Praja Rajyam Party

7 SAVANAPUDI NAGARAJU M 48 Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)

8 SIRIKI SRINIVAS M 32 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

9 KASI NAIDU KAMMILI M 39 Independent

10 TANUKU SEKHAR M 45 Independent

11 DODDA KAMESWARA RAO M 54 Independent

12 DOWLURI GOVARDHAN M 32 Independent

S01 28 AP MACHILIPATNAM 23-Apr-09 1 KONAKALLA NARAYANA RAO M 59 Telugu Desam

2 CHIGURUPATI RAMALINGESWARA RAO M 33 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 BADIGA RAMAKRISHNA M 66 Indian National Congress

4 BHOGADI RAMA DEVI F 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 KOPPULA VENKATESWARA RAO M 45 Lok Satta Party

6 CHENNAMSETTI RAMACHANDRAIAH M 60 Praja Rajyam Party

7 YARLAGADDA RAMAMOHANA RAO M 44 Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party

8 VARA LAKSHMI KONERU F 59 Pyramid Party of India

9 G.V. NAGESWARA RAO M 25 Independent

10 YENDURI SUBRAMANYESWA RAO ( MANI ) M 50 Independent

S01 29 AP VIJAYAWADA 23-Apr-09 1 LAGADAPATI RAJA GOPAL M 45 Indian National Congress

2 LAKA VENGALA RAO M 38 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 VAMSI MOHAN VALLABHANENI M 38 Telugu Desam

4 SISTLA NARASIMHA MURTHY M 63 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 DEVINENI KISHORE KUMAR M 59 Lok Satta Party

6 RAGHAVA RAO JAKKA M 60 Pyramid Party of India

7 RAJIV CHANUMOLU M 43 Praja Rajyam Party

8 APPIKATLA JAWAHAR M 44 Independent

9 KRISHNA MURTHY SUNKARA M 46 Independent

10 JAKKA TARAKA MALLIKHARJUNA RAO M 42 Independent

11 DEVERASETTY RAVINDRA BABU M 35 Independent

12 DEVIREDDY RAVINDRANATHA REDDY M 36 Independent

13 PERUPOGU VENKATESWARA RAO M 41 Independent

14 BAIPUDI NAGESWARA RAO M 30 Independent

15 BOPPA VENKATESWARA RAO M 42 Independent

16 BOLISETTY HARIBABU M 46 Independent

17 VEERLA SANJEEVA RAO M 44 Independent

18 VENKATA RAO P. M 44 Independent

19 SENAPATHI CHIRANJEEVI M 36 Independent

20 SHAIK MASTAN M 28 Independent

S01 30 AP GUNTUR 23-Apr-09 1 MALLELA BABU RAO M 61 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 YADLAPATI SWARUPARANI F 51 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 RAJENDRA MADALA M 42 Telugu Desam

7 SAMBASIVA RAO RAYAPATI M 65 Indian National Congress

8 AMANULLA KHAN M 37 Lok Satta Party

9 KOMMANABOINA LAKSHMAIAH M 39 Rajyadhikara Party

11 THOTA CHANDRA SEKHAR M 47 Praja Rajyam Party

12 YARRAKULA TULASI RAM YADAV M 29 Samajwadi Party

13 VELAGAPUDI LAKSHMANA RAO M 59 Pyramid Party of India

14 SRINIVASA RAO THOTAKURA M 34 Ajeya Bharat Party

S01 31 AP NARASARAOPET 23-Apr-09 1 BALASHOWRY VALLABHANENI M 43 Indian National Congress

2 BEJJAM RATNAKARA RAO M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 VALLEPU KRUPA RAO M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 VENUGOPALA REDDY MODUGULA M 42 Telugu Desam

7 GANUGAPENTA UTTAMA REDDY M 30 Lok Satta Party

8 S.G. MASTAN VALI M 31 Pyramid Party of India

9 RAMADUGU VENKATA SUBBA RAO M 45 Samajwadi Party

11 SHAIK SYED SAHEB M 65 Praja Rajyam Party

13 SAI PRASAD EDARA M 42 Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party

14 ATCHALA NARASIMHA RAO M 39 Independent

15 ANNAMRAJU VENUGOPALA MADHAVA RAO M 37 Independent

17 KATAMARAJU NALAGORLA M 61 Independent

19 YAMPATI VEERANJANEYA REDDY M 38 Independent

21 SRINIVASA REDDY KESARI M 40 Independent

S01 32 AP BAPATLA 23-Apr-09 1 DARA SAMBAIAH M 62 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 PANABAKA LAKSHMI F 50 Indian National Congress

3 BATTULA ROSAYYA M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 MALYADRI SRIRAM M 55 Telugu Desam

5 GARIKAPATI SUDHAKAR M 37 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

6 NUTHAKKI RAMA RAO M 61 Praja Rajyam Party

7 GUDIPALLI SATHYA BABUJI M 40 Independent

8 GORREMUCHU CHINNA RAO M 42 Independent

9 GOLLA BABU RAO M 34 Independent

10 DEVARAPALLI BUJJI BABU M 34 Independent

S01 33 AP ONGOLE 23-Apr-09 1 MANDAVA VASUDEVA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 MADDULURI MALAKONDAIAH YADAV M 47 Telugu Desam

3 MAGUNTA SRINIVASULU REDDY M 55 Indian National Congress

4 CHALUVADI SRINIVASARAO M 38 Pyramid Party of India

5 DR,NARAYANAM RADHA DEVI F 57 Lok Satta Party

6 PIDATHALA SAI KALPANA F 50 Praja Rajyam Party

7 SHAIK SHAJAHAN M 49 United Women Front

8 GARRE RAMAKRISHNA M 34 Independent

9 DAMA MOHANA RAO M 53 Independent

10 NALAMALAPU LAKSHMINARASAREDDY M 40 Independent

11 YATHAPU KONDAREDDY M 28 Independent

S01 34 AP NANDYAL 23-Apr-09 1 NASYAM MOHAMMED FAROOK M 57 Telugu Desam

2 S.MOHAMMED ISMAIL M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 S.P.Y.REDDY M 59 Indian National Congress

4 ABDUL SATTAR . G M 26 B. C. United Front

5 PICHHIKE NARENDRA DEV M 39 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

6 BHUMA VENKATA NAGI REDDY M 45 Praja Rajyam Party

7 RAMA JAGANNADHA REDDY TAMIDELA M 34 Lok Satta Party

8 SADHU VEERA VENKATA RAMANAIAH M 35 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

9 AMBATI RAMESWARA REDDY M 35 Independent

10 K.ARTHER PANCHARATNAM M 44 Independent

11 B.P.KAMBAGIRI SWAMY M 36 Independent

12 GALI RAMA SUBBA REDDY M 33 Independent

13 A.U.FAROOQ M 25 Independent

14 G.BALASWAMY M 37 Independent

15 T.MAHESH NAIDU M 28 Independent

16 B.V.RAMI REDDY M 47 Independent

17 B.R.L.REDDY M 40 Independent

18 VENNUPUSA VENKATESHWARA REDDY M 35 Independent

19 SINGAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY M 35 Independent

20 T.SRINUVASULU M 38 Independent

21 V.SESHI REDDY M 33 Independent

S01 35 AP KURNOOL 23-Apr-09 1 KOTLA JAYA SURYA PRAKASH REDDY M 57 Indian National Congress

2 GADDAM RAMAKRISHNA M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 B.T.NAIDU M 36 Telugu Desam

4 RAVI SUBRAMANYAM K.A. M 39 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 JALLI VENKATESH M 38 Lok Satta Party

6 DR.DANDIYA KHAJA PEERA M 55 Praja Rajyam Party

7 B.NAGA JAYA CHANDRA REDDY M 35 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

8 DR.P.R.PARAMESWAR REDDY M 36 Pyramid Party of India

9 DEVI RAMALINGAPPA M 44 Independent

10 V.V. RAMANA M 38 Independent

11 RAJU M 45 Independent

S01 36 AP ANANTAPUR 23-Apr-09 1 ANANTHA VENKATA RAMI REDDY M 52 Indian National Congress

2 AMBATI RAMA KRISHNA REDDY M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 KALAVA SRINIVASULU M 44 Telugu Desam

4 GADDALA NAGABHUSHANAM M 45 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 AMARNATH M 32 Lok Satta Party

6 KRUSHNAPURAM GAYATHRI DEVI F 36 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

7 MANSOOR M 56 Praja Rajyam Party

8 G HARI M 29 Pyramid Party of India

9 T CHANDRA SEKHAR M 30 Independent

10 DEVELLA MURALI M 44 Independent

11 K P NARAYANA SWAMY M 41 Independent

12 J C RAMANUJULA REDDY M 52 Independent

S01 37 AP HINDUPUR 23-Apr-09 1 KRISTAPPA NIMMALA M 52 Telugu Desam

2 P KHASIM KHAN M 53 Indian National Congress

3 NARESH CINE ACTOR M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 B.S.P.SREERAMULU M 30 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 KADAPALA SREEKANTA REDDY M 56 Praja Rajyam Party

6 NIRANJAN BABU. K M 30 Lok Satta Party

7 S. MUSKIN VALI M 26 Pyramid Party of India

8 K. JAKEER M 40 Independent

9 B. NAGABHUSHANA RAO M 76 Independent

10 P. PRASAD (PEETLA PRASAD) M 32 Independent

S01 38 AP KADAPA 23-Apr-09 1 JAMBAPURAM MUNI REDDY M 31 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY M 36 Indian National Congress

3 PALEM SRIKANTH REDDY M 45 Telugu Desam

4 VANGALA SHASHI BHUSHAN REDDY M 37 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 KASIBHATLA SAINATH SARMA M 38 Rajyadhikara Party

6 N. KISHORE KUMAR REDDY M 38 Janata Dal (Secular)

7 KUNCHAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY M 42 Rayalaseema Rashtra Samithi

8 DR. KHALEEL BASHA M 60 Praja Rajyam Party

9 GAJJALA RAMA SUBBA REDDY M 57 Pyramid Party of India

10 GUDIPATI. PRASANNA KUMAR M 55 Lok Satta Party

11 C. GOPI NARASIMHA REDDY M 31 Janata Dal (United)

12 CHINNAPA REDDY KOMMA M 41 Bharatiya Jan Shakti

13 Y. SEKHARA REDDY M 47 Republican Party of India (A)

14 S. ALI SHER M 47 Independent

15 THIMMAPPAGARI VENKATA SIVA REDDY M 47 Independent

16 V. NARENDRA M 39 Independent

17 S. RAJA MADIGA M 46 Independent

18 YELLIPALAM RAMESH REDDY M 35 Independent

19 SIVANARAYANA REDDY CHADIPIRALLA M 39 Independent

20 J. SUBBARAYUDU M 51 Independent

S01 39 AP NELLORE 23-Apr-09 1 S. PADMA NAGESWARA RAO M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 BATHINA NARASIMHA RAO M 65 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 MEKAPATI RAJAMOHAN REDDY M 64 Indian National Congress

4 VANTERU VENU GOPALA REDDY M 59 Telugu Desam

5 JANA RAMACHANDRAIAH M 56 Praja Rajyam Party

6 VEMURI BHASKARA RAO M 36 Lok Satta Party

7 SIDDIRAJU SATYANARAYANA M 43 Pyramid Party of India

8 KARIMULLA M 42 Independent

9 MUCHAKALA CHANDRA SEKHAR YADAV M 40 Independent

10 VENKATA BHASKAR REDDY DIRISALA M 37 Independent

11 SYED HAMZA HUSSAINY M 46 Independent

S01 40 AP TIRUPATI 23-Apr-09 1 CHINTA MOHAN M 54 Indian National Congress

2 VARLA RAMAIAH M 57 Telugu Desam

3 N.VENKATASWAMY M 77 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 JUVVIGUNTA VENKATESWARLU M 37 Lok Satta Party

5 DEGALA SURYANARAYANA M 34 Pyramid Party of India

6 DHANASEKHAR GUNDLURU M 41 Republican Party of India (A)

7 VARAPRASADA RAO. V M 55 Praja Rajyam Party

8 OREPALLI VENKATA KRISHNA PRASAD M 43 Independent

9 KATTAMANCHI PRABAKHAR M 40 Independent

10 YALAVADI MUNIKRISHNAIAH M 64 Independent

S01 41 AP RAJAMPET 23-Apr-09 1 ANNAYYAGARI SAI PRATHAP M 64 Indian National Congress

2 ALLAPUREDDY. HARINATHA REDDY M 69 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 RAMESH KUMAR REDDY REDDAPPAGARI M 44 Telugu Desam

4 SUNKARA SREENIVAS M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 DR. ARAVA. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY M 38 Pyramid Party of India

6 ADI NARAYANA REDDY .V M 40 Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party

7 NAGESWARA RAO EDAGOTTU M 38 Lok Satta Party

8 D.A. SRINIVAS M 36 Praja Rajyam Party

9 SHAIK AMEEN PEERAN M 39 Ambedkar National Congress

10 ASADI VENKATADRI M 41 Independent

11 INDRA PRAKASH M 32 Independent

12 KASTHURI OBAIAH NAIDU M 55 Independent

13 B. KRISHNAPPA M 32 Independent

14 PULA RAGHU M 44 Independent

15 HAJI MOHAMMAD AZAM M 82 Independent

S01 42 AP CHITTOOR 23-Apr-09 1 JAYARAM DUGGANI M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 THIPPESWAMY M M 55 Indian National Congress

3 NARAMALLI SIVAPRASAD M 57 Telugu Desam

4 B.SIVAKUMAR M 40 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 A. AMARNADH M 37 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

6 TALARI MANOHAR M 54 Praja Rajyam Party

7 G. VENKATACHALAM M 29 Lok Satta Party

S03 4 AS DHUBRI 23-Apr-09 1 ANWAR HUSSAIN M 62 Indian National Congress

2 BADRUDDIN AJMAL M 54 Assam United Democratic Front

3 ARUN DAS M 39 Rashtrawadi Sena

4 ALOK SEN M 37 Samajwadi Party

5 SOLEMAN ALI M 45 Independent

6 SHAHJAHAN ALI M 39 Independent

7 SOLEMAN KHANDAKER M 53 Independent

8 TRIPTI KANA MAZUMDAR CHOUDHURY F 45 Independent

9 NUR MAHAMMAD M 61 Independent

10 MINHAR ALI MANDAL M 61 Independent

S03 5 AS KOKRAJHAR 23-Apr-09 1 SABDA RAM RABHA M 39 Asom Gana Parishad

2 SANSUMA KHUNGGUR BWISWMUTHIARY M 49 Bodaland Peoples Front

3 URKHAO GWRA BRAHMA M 45 Independent

S03 6 AS BARPETA 23-Apr-09 1 ABDUS SAMAD AHMED M 41 Assam United Democratic Front

2 MD. AMIR ALI M 42 Rashtriya Janata Dal

3 ISMAIL HUSSAIN M 55 Indian National Congress

4 DURGESWAR DEKA M 54 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5 BHUPEN RAY M 49 Asom Gana Parishad

6 ABU CHAND MAHMMAD M 63 Republican Party of India (A)

7 ABDUL KADDUS M 35 Samajwadi Party

8 KANDARPA LAHKAR M 53 Rashtravadi Janata Party

9 MD. DILIR KHAN M 42 Muslim League Kerala State Committee

10 MUIJ UDDIN MAHMUD M 51 Lok Jan Shakti Party

11 ABDUL KADER M 41 Independent

12 GOLAP HUSSAIN MAZUMDER M 35 Independent

13 DEWAN JOYNAL ABEDIN M 65 Independent

14 BHADRESWAR DAS M 40 Independent

S03 7 AS GAUHATI 23-Apr-09 1 AKSHAY RAJKHOWA M 49 Nationalist Congress Party

2 BIJOYA CHAKRAVARTY F 70 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 CAPT. ROBIN BORDOLOI M 67 Indian National Congress

4 SONABOR ALI M 58 Assam United Democratic Front

5 AMBU BORA M 78 Revolutionary Communist Party of India (Rasik Bhatt)

6 DEEPAK KALITA M 34 Samajwadi Party

7 SHIMANTA BRAHMA M 48 Rashtrawadi Sena

8 AMIT BARUA M 42 Independent

9 KAZI NEKIB AHMED M 51 Independent

10 DEVA KANTA RAMCHIARY M 46 Independent

11 BRIJESH ROY M 30 Independent

12 RINA GAYARY DAS F 41 Independent

S03 8 AS MANGALDOI 23-Apr-09 1 BADIUJ ZAMAL M 33 Assam United Democratic Front

2 MADHAB RAJBANGSHI M 53 Indian National Congress

3 RAMEN DEKA M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 DINA NATH DAS M 65 Bodaland Peoples Front

5 PARVEEN SULTANA F 42 All India Minorities Front

6 RABINDRA NATH HAZARIKA M 72 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

7 RATUL KUMAR CHOUDHURY M 38 Samajwadi Party

8 LANKESWAR ACHARJYA M 45 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

9 LUCYMAI BASUMATARI F 58 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

10 AROON BAROOA M 53 Independent

11 PRODEEP KUMAR DAIMARY M 42 Independent

12 BHUPENDRA NATH KAKATI M 62 Independent

13 MANOJ KUMAR DEKA M 55 Independent

S03 9 AS TEZPUR 23-Apr-09 1 JITEN SUNDI M 64 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 DEBA ORANG M 54 Assam United Democratic Front

3 MONI KUMAR SUBBA M 51 Indian National Congress

4 JOSEPH TOPPO M 60 Asom Gana Parishad

5 ARUN KUMAR MURMOO M 33 Bharat Vikas Morcha

6 PARASHMONI SINHA M 33 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

7 JUGANANDA HAZARIKA M 42 Samajwadi Party

8 RUBUL SARMA M 52 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

9 REGINOLD V. JOHNSON M 45 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

10 KALYAN KUMAR DEORI BHARALI M 69 Independent

11 DANIEL DAVID JESUDAS M 66 Independent

12 MD. NAZIR AHMED M 56 Independent

13 DR. PRANAB KR. DAS M 41 Independent

14 PRASANTA BORO M 32 Independent

15 RUDRA PARAJULI M 52 Independent

S03 10 AS NOWGONG 23-Apr-09 1 ANIL RAJA M 51 Indian National Congress

2 RAJEN GOHAIN M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 SIRAJ UDDIN AJMAL M 52 Assam United Democratic Front

4 PHEIROIJAM IBOMCHA SINGH M 60 All India Forward Bloc

5 BIPIN SAIKIA M 55 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

6 BIREN DAS M 48 Rashtrawadi Sena

7 BHUPEN CHANDRA MUDOI M 55 Republican Party of India (A)

8 LIAQAT HUSSAIN M 40 Lok Jan Shakti Party

9 ASHIT DUTTA M 47 Independent

10 NAZRUL HAQUE MAZARBHUIYAN M 55 Independent

11 PUSPA KANTA BORA M 49 Independent

12 BIMALA PRASAD TALUKDAR M 46 Independent

13 HERAMBA MOHAN PANDIT M 45 Independent

S03 11 AS KALIABOR 23-Apr-09 1 GUNIN HAZARIKA M 61 Asom Gana Parishad

2 DIP GOGOI M 57 Indian National Congress

3 SIRAJ UDDIN AJMAL M 52 Assam United Democratic Front

4 KAMAL HAZARIKA M 48 Independent

5 PAUL NAYAK M 40 Independent

6 PRADEEP DUTTA M 42 Independent

7 BINOD GOGOI M 38 Independent

8 MRIDUL BARUAH M 37 Independent

S03 12 AS JORHAT 23-Apr-09 1 KAMAKHYA TASA M 34 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 DRUPAD BORGOHAIN M 68 Communist Party of India

3 BIJOY KRISHNA HANDIQUE M 77 Indian National Congress

4 ABINASH KISHORE BORAH M 30 Rashtrawadi Sena

5 BIREN NANDA M 48 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

6 NAVAPROKASH SONOWAL M 36 Independent

7 RAJ KUMAR DOWARAH M 43 Independent

8 SUJIT SAHU M 38 Independent

S03 13 AS DIBRUGARH 23-Apr-09 1 SRI PABAN SINGH GHATOWAR M 60 Indian National Congress

2 SRI ROMEN CH. BORTHAKUR M 48 Nationalist Congress Party

3 SRI RATUL GOGOI M 31 Communist Party of India

4 SRI SARBANANDA SONOWAL M 47 Asom Gana Parishad

5 SRI GONGARAM KAUL M 39 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6 NIHARIKA BORPATRA GOHAIN GOGOI F 30 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

7 IMTIAZ HUSSAIN M 31 Independent

8 FRANCIS DHAN M 40 Independent

9 LAKHI CHARAN SWANSI M 34 Independent

10 SIMA GHOSH F 40 Independent

S03 14 AS LAKHIMPUR 23-Apr-09 1 DR. ARUN KR. SARMA M 52 Asom Gana Parishad

2 BHOGESWAR DUTTA M 63 Communist Party of India

3 RANEE NARAH F 45 Indian National Congress

4 GANGADHAR DUTTA M 39 Shivsena

5 DEBNATH MAJHI M 30 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

6 PRAN JYOTI BORPATRA GOHAIN M 26 Rashtrawadi Sena

7 MINU BURAGOHAIN F 50 Samajwadi Party

8 RATNESWAR GOGOI M 63 All India Forward Bloc

9 LALIT MILI M 53 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

10 SONAMONI DAS M 39 Lok Jan Shakti Party

11 ASAP SUNDIGURIA M 62 Independent

12 PRASHANTA GOGOI M 35 Independent

13 BHUMIDHAR HAZARIKA M 38 Independent

14 RANOJ PEGU M 45 Independent

15 RABIN DEKA M 54 Independent

S04 1 BR VALMIKI NAGAR 23-Apr-09 1 DILIP VERMA M 52 Nationalist Congress Party

2 BAIDYANATH PRASAD MAHTO M 51 Janata Dal (United)

3 MANAN MISHRA M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 MOHAMMAD SHAMIM AKHTAR M 37 Indian National Congress

5 RAGHUNATH JHA M 63 Rashtriya Janata Dal

6 BIRENDRA PRASAD GUPTA M 40 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7 SHAILENDRA KUMAR GARHWAL M 38 Loktantrik Samata Dal

8 AMBIKA SINGH M 53 Independent

9 UMESH M 36 Independent

10 DEORAJ RAM M 31 Independent

11 FAKHRUDDIN M 37 Independent

12 MAGISTER YADAV M 42 Independent

13 MANOHAR MANOJ M 40 Independent

14 RAMASHANKAR PRASAD M 35 Independent

15 RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY M 51 Independent

16 SATYANARAIN YADAV M 28 Independent

S04 2 BR PASCHIM CHAMPARAN 23-Apr-09 1 ANIRUDH PRASAD ALIAS SADHU YADAV M 46 Indian National Congress

2 PRAKASH JHA M 55 Lok Jan Shakti Party

3 RAMASHRAY SINGH M 65 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

4 SHAMBHU PRASAD GUPTA M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 DR. SANJAY JAISWAL M 44 Bharatiya Janata Party

6 FAIYAZUL AZAM M 71 Janata Dal (Secular)

7 MANOJ KUMAR M 44 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

8 SYED SHAMIM AKHTAR M 48 Loktantrik Samata Dal

9 NAFIS AHAMAD M 35 Independent

10 SHRIMAN MISHRA M 41 Independent

11 SYED IRSHAD AKHTER M 32 Independent

S04 3 BR PURVI CHAMPARAN 23-Apr-09 1 AKHILESH PD. SINGH M 40 Rashtriya Janata Dal

2 ARVIND KR. GUPTA M 29 Indian National Congress

3 GAGANDEO YADAV M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 RADHA MOHAN SINGH M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 RAMCHANDRA PD. M 51 Communist Party of India

6 UMESH KR. SINGH M 43 Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

7 NAGENDRA SAHANI M 33 Loktantrik Samata Dal

8 SURESH KR. RAJAK M 45 Indian Justice Party

9 SURESH KR. RAI M 41 Bajjikanchal Vikas Party

10 JHAGARU MAHATO M 48 Independent

11 PARASNATH PANDEY M 48 Independent

12 MD. MURTAZA ANSARI(DR. LAL) M 40 Independent

S04 4 BR SHEOHAR 23-Apr-09 1 MD. ANWARUL HAQUE M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 MD. TANVEER ZAFER M 33 Communist Party of India

3 RAMA DEVI F 60 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 LOVELY ANAND M 35 Indian National Congress

5 SITARAM SINGH M 60 Rashtriya Janata Dal

6 ARUN SAH M 30 Bharatiya Loktantrik Party(Gandhi-Lohiawadi)

7 BASDEO SAH M 36 Indian Justice Party

8 SHATRUGHANA SAHU M 38 Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal

9 AJAY KUMAR PANDEY M 36 Independent

10 CHANDRIKA PRASAD M 34 Independent

11 MOHAMMAD FIROZ AHAMAD M 28 Independent

12 MOHSIN M 29 Independent

13 YOGENDRA RAM M 38 Independent

14 RAM ASHISH, MAHTO M 64 Independent

15 SUNIL SINGH M 44 Independent

S04 5 BR SITAMARHI 23-Apr-09 1 ARJUN ROY M 37 Janata Dal (United)

2 MAYA SHANKAR SHARAN M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 SAMIR KUMAR MAHASETH M 49 Indian National Congress

4 SITARAM YADAV M 61 Rashtriya Janata Dal

5 S. ABU DAUJANA M 41 Loktantrik Samata Dal

6 CHITARANJAN GIRI M 42 Rashtriya Pragati Party

7 MOHAMMAD AFZAL PAINTHER M 44 Ambedkar National Congress

8 SHANKAR SINHA M 51 Revolutionary Socialist Party

9 CHANDRIKA PRASAD M 34 Independent

10 ZAHID M 30 Independent

11 DINESH PRASAD M 40 Independent

12 PAPPU KUMAR MISHRA M 30 Independent

13 MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA M 39 Independent

14 RAVINDRA KUMAR M 36 Independent

15 RAM KISHORE PRASAD M 71 Independent

16 SONE LAL SAH M 61 Independent

S04 6 BR MADHUBANI 23-Apr-09 1 ABDULBARI SIDDIKI M 62 Rashtriya Janata Dal

2 LAXMANKANT MISHRA M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 DR SHAKEEL AHAMAD M 52 Indian National Congress

4 HUKM DEO NARAYAN YADAV M 72 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 DR HEMCHANDRA JHA M 48 Communist Party of India

6 MINTU KUMAR SINGH M 30 Jago Party

7 MISHRI LAL YADAV M 39 Rashtriya Krantikari Janata Party

8 RAMCHANDRA YADAV M 65 Krantikari Samyavadi Party

9 RAM SAGAR SAHANI M 51 Indian Justice Party

10 MD ZINNUR M 47 Independent

11 RAVINDRA THAKUR M 40 Independent

12 RAJESHWAR YADAV M 37 Independent

13 SANJAY KUMAR MAHTO M 36 Independent

14 HARIBHUSHAN THAKUR “BACHOL” M 44 Independent

S04 7 BR JHANJHARPUR 23-Apr-09 1 KRIPANATH PATHAK M 65 Indian National Congress

2 GAURI SHANKAR YADAV M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 DEVENDRA PRASAD YADAV M 53 Rashtriya Janata Dal

4 MANGANI LAL MANDAL M 60 Janata Dal (United)

5 DR KIRTAN PRASAD SINGH M 50 Loktantrik Samata Dal

6 YOGNATH MANDAL M 36 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7 OM PRAKASH M 27 Independent

8 NATHUNI YADAV M 57 Independent

9 FIROZ ALAM M 38 Independent

10 VIVEKA NAND JHA M 33 Independent

11 SHANKAR PRASAD M 26 Independent

S04 14 BR DARBHANGA 23-Apr-09 1 AJAY KUMAR JALAN M 49 Indian National Congress

2 MD. ALI ASHRAF FATMI M 53 Rashtriya Janata Dal

3 KIRTI AZAD M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 YUGESHWAR SAHNI M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 KUMARI SURESHWARI F 60 Rashtriya Mazdoor Ekta Party

6 MD. KHURSHID ALAM M 46 Apna Dal

7 DURGANAND MAHAVIR NAYAK M 37 Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal

8 MD. NIZAMUDDIN M 36 Indian Justice Party

9 SATYANARAYAN MUKHIA M 41 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

10 ABDUR RAHIM M 49 Independent

11 GOVIND ACHARAY M 27 Independent

12 BHARAT YADAV M 54 Independent

13 LALBAHADUR YADAV M 35 Independent

14 PROF. HARERAM ACHARAY M 49 Independent

S04 15 BR MUZAFFARPUR 23-Apr-09 1 CAPTAIN JAI NARAYAN PRASAD NISHAD M 78 Janata Dal (United)

2 BHAGWANLAL SAHNI M 57 Lok Jan Shakti Party

3 VINITA VIJAY F 41 Indian National Congress

4 SAMEER KUMAR M 41 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 JITENDRA YADAV M 35 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6 DINESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA M 32 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

7 DEVENDRA RAKESH M 49 Bajjikanchal Vikas Party

8 NEELU SINGH F 36 Proutist Sarva Samaj

9 MAHENDRA PRASAD M 63 Rashtriya Pragati Party

10 MITHILESH KUMAR M 40 Rashtra Sewa Dal

11 MOHAMMAD SHAMIM M 31 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

12 MD. RAHAMTULLAHA M 37 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

13 RAM DAYAL RAM M 48 All India Forward Bloc

14 REYAJ AHMAD ATISH M 62 Jago Party

15 MD. SALEEM M 36 Rashtravadi Janata Party

16 ASHOK KUMAR LALAN M 37 Independent

17 AHMAD RAZA M 31 Independent

18 GEORGE FERNANDES M 78 Independent

19 TARKESHWAR PASWAN M 38 Independent

20 VIJENDRA CHAUDHARY M 42 Independent

21 VINOD PASWAN M 35 Independent

22 SHAMBHU SAHNI M 37 Independent

23 SADANAND KISHORE THAKUR M 38 Independent

24 SYED ALAMDAR HUSSAIN M 27 Independent

S04 16 BR VAISHALI 23-Apr-09 1 RAGHUVANSH PRASAD SINGH M 62 Rashtriya Janata Dal

2 VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA M 38 Janata Dal (United)

3 SHANKAR MAHTO M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 HIND KESRI YADAV M 58 Indian National Congress

5 PUNAMRI DEVI F 37 United Women Front

6 PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA M 27 Bajjikanchal Vikas Party

7 BADRI PASWAN M 39 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

8 BALAK NATH SAHANI M 39 Indian Justice Party

9 LALJI KUMAR RAKESH M 35 Rashtra Sewa Dal

10 BINOD PANDIT M 29 Lokpriya Samaj Party

11 INDARDEO RAI M 46 Independent

12 JITENDRA PRASAD M 34 Independent

S04 21 BR HAJIPUR 23-Apr-09 1 DASAI CHOWDHARY M 52 Indian National Congress

2 MAHESHWAR DAS M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 RAM VILAS PASWAN M 61 Lok Jan Shakti Party

4 RAM SUNDAR DAS M 88 Janata Dal (United)

5 DINESH CHANDRA BHUSHAN M 36 Loktantrik Samata Dal

6 NAND LAL PASWAN M 47 Independent

7 PRATIMA KUMARI F 33 Independent

8 RAJENDRA KUMAR PASWAN M 54 Independent

9 RAM TIRTH PASWAN M 59 Independent

10 VISHWA VIJAY KUMAR VIDHYARTHI M 30 Independent

11 SANJAY PASHWAN M 30 Independent

S04 22 BR UJIARPUR 23-Apr-09 1 ASWAMEDH DEVI F 40 Janata Dal (United)

2 ALOK KUMAR MEHTA M 40 Rashtriya Janata Dal

3 RAMDEO VERMA M 62 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

4 VIJAYWANT KUMAR CHOUDHARY M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 SHEEL KUMAR ROY M 40 Indian National Congress

6 CHANDRA DEO ROY M 48 Socialist Party (Lohia)

7 JAI NARAYAN SAH M 53 Bajjikanchal Vikas Party

8 JITENDRA KUMAR ROY M 32 Shivsena

9 TOSHAN SAH M 62 Rashtriya Pragati Party

10 MD. TAUKIR M 40 Samata Party

11 MASSOD HASSAN M 29 Muslim League Kerala State Committee

12 RAMNATH SINGH M 36 Rashtra Sewa Dal

13 ARJUN SAHNI M 28 Independent

14 PRADEEP KUMAR M 41 Independent

15 BRAJESH KUMAR NIRALA M 51 Independent

16 MANSOOR M 42 Independent

17 MOHAN PAUL M 47 Independent

18 MOHAMMAD KURBAN M 43 Independent

19 RATAN SAHNI M 46 Independent

20 RAM SAGAR MAHTO M 45 Independent

21 SANJAY KUMAR JHA M 36 Independent

22 SUJIT KUMAR BHAGAT M 29 Independent

S04 23 BR SAMASTIPUR 23-Apr-09 1 DR. ASHOK KUMAR M 54 Indian National Congress

2 MAHESWER HAZARI M 38 Janata Dal (United)

3 RAM CHANDRA PASWAN M 47 Lok Jan Shakti Party

4 BINDESHWAR PASWAN M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 UPENDRA PASWAN M 42 Loktantrik Samata Dal

6 JEEBACHH PASWAN M 41 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7 RANDHIR PASWAN M 27 Independent

8 RAJA RAM DAS M 56 Independent

9 REKHA KUMARI F 29 Independent

10 SHIVCHANDRA PASWAN M 31 Independent

11 SATISH MAHTO M 33 Independent

S05 1 GA NORTH GOA 23-Apr-09 1 CHRISTOPHER FONSECA M 55 Communist Party of India

2 JITENDRA RAGHURAJ DESHPRABHU M 53 Nationalist Congress Party

3 RAUT PANDURANG DATTARAM M 62 Maharashtrawadi Gomantak

4 SHRIPAD YESSO NAIK M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 UPENDRA CHANDRU GAONKAR M 48 Shivsena

6 NARACINVA SURYA SALGAONKAR M 51 Independent

7 MARTHA D’ SOUZA F 55 Independent

S05 2 GA SOUTH GOA 23-Apr-09 1 COSME FRANCISCO CAITANO SARDINHA M 62 Indian National Congress

2 ADV. NARENDRA KESHAV SAWAIKAR M 42 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 ADV. RAJU MANGESHKAR ALIAS RAJENDRA NAIK M 52 Communist Party of India

4 ROHIDAS HARICHANDRA BORKAR M 63 Save Goa Front

5 MATANHY SALDANHA M 60 United Goans Democratic Party

6 DIAS JAWAHAR M 53 Independent

7 DERICK DIAS M 41 Independent

8 FRANCISCO ANTONIO JOAO DE PHILOMENO FERNANDES M 66 Independent

9 MULLA SALIM M 25 Independent

10 SALUNKE SMITA PRAVEEN F 38 Independent

11 HAMZA KHAN M 57 Independent

S09 5 JK UDHAMPUR 23-Apr-09 1 ADREES AHMAD TABBASUM M 45 Communist Party of India

2 BALBIR SINGH M 53 Jammu & Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party

3 PROF. BHIM SINGH M 69 Jammu & Kashmir National Panthers Party

4 RAKESH WAZIR M 29 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 CH. LAL SINGH M 50 Indian National Congress

6 DR. NIRMAL SINGH M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party

7 BODH RAJ M 42 Backward Classes Democratic Party, J&K

8 RAJESH MANCHANDA M 40 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

9 KANCHAN SHARMA F 40 Bharatiya Bahujan Party

10 MASTER WILLIAM GILL M 60 All India Forward Bloc

11 ATUL SHARMA M 30 Independent

12 DEV RAJ M 57 Independent

13 MOHD. YOUSUF M 46 Independent

14 NARESH DOGRA M 40 Independent

S10 1 KA CHIKKODI 23-Apr-09 1 KATTI RAMESH VISHWANATH M 44 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 PRAKASH BABANNA HUKKERI M 62 Indian National Congress

3 SHIVANAND WANTAMURI SIDDAMALLAPPA M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 BANASHANKARI BHIMAPPA ITTAPPA M 32 Independent

5 MALLAPPA MARUTI KHATANVE M 60 Independent

6 YASHWANT MANOHAR SUTAR M 32 Independent

7 SHAILA SURESH KOLI F 37 Independent

S10 2 KA BELGAUM 23-Apr-09 1 AMARSINH VASANTRAO PATIL M 49 Indian National Congress

2 ANGADI SURESH CHANNABASAPPA M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 A. B. PATIL M 56 Janata Dal (Secular)

4 RAMANAGOUDA SIDDANGOUDA PATIL M 66 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 ALLAPPA RAMAPPA PATIL M 31 Independent

6 KASTURI BASANAGOUDA BHAVI F 40 Independent

7 MOHAN. H. GADIWADDAR M 29 Independent

8 RAMCHANDRA MAREPPA TORGAL(CHALAWADI) M 66 Independent

9 VIJAYKUMAR JEENDATTA UPADHYE M 47 Independent

10 HANAJI ASHOK PANDU M 28 Independent

S10 4 KA BIJAPUR 23-Apr-09 1 ALMELKAR VILASABABU BASALINGAPPA M 46 Janata Dal (Secular)

2 KANAMADI SUDHAKAR MALLESH M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 PRAKASH KUBASING RATHOD M 48 Indian National Congress

4 RAMESH CHANDAPPA JIGAJINAGI M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 NARASAPPA TIPPANNA BANDIWADDAR M 48 Sarvodaya Karnataka Paksha

6 LAMANI CHANDRAKANT RUPASING M 38 Lok Jan Shakti Party

7 ARAKERI NIRMALA SRINIVAS F 35 Independent

8 CHALAWADI RAMANNA M 54 Independent

9 SEVALAL SOMASHEKAR PURAPPA M 46 Independent

10 HARIJAN AMBANNA TUKARAM M 33 Independent

S10 5 KA GULBARGA 23-Apr-09 1 BABU HONNA NAIK M 55 Janata Dal (Secular)

2 MALLIKARJUN KHARGE M 67 Indian National Congress

3 MAHADEV. B. DHANNI M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 REVUNAIK BELAMGI M 70 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 DR. K. T. PALUSKAR M 53 Prabuddha Republican Party

6 RAVIKUMAR SHALIMANI SEDAM M 34 Ambedkar National Congress

7 SHANKER KODLA M 73 Janata Dal (United)

8 SHANKAR JADHAV M 48 Bharatiya Peoples Party

9 H.V. DIWAKAR M 46 Independent

10 SHIVAKUMAR . KOLLUR M 44 Independent

S10 6 KA RAICHUR 23-Apr-09 1 K.DEVANNA NAIK M 56 Janata Dal (Secular)

2 PAKKIRAPPA.S. M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 RAJA VENKATAPPA NAIK M 52 Indian National Congress

4 SHIVAKUMAR M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 COM II. V.H.MASTER M 73 Independent

6 COMRADE V.MUDUKAPPA NAYAK M 36 Independent

7 R.MUDUKAPPA NAYAK M 44 Independent

8 K.SOMASHEKHAR M 43 Independent

S10 7 KA BIDAR 23-Apr-09 1 GURUPADAPPA NAGMARPALLI M 25 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 JAGANNATH.R.JAMADAR M 25 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 N.DHARAM SINGH M 25 Indian National Congress

4 SUBHASH TIPPANNA NELGE M 25 Janata Dal (Secular)

5 ADVOCATE MOULVI ZAMEERUDDIN M 25 National Development Party

6 BHASKAR BABU PATERPALLI M 25 Indian Christian Secular Party

7 SHRAVAN SANGONDA BHANDE M 25 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

8 SUBHASH CHANDRA G.KHAPATE M 25 Laghujan Samaj Vikas Party

9 AMRUTHAPPA.M.D M 25 Independent

10 MD ARSHAD AHMED ANSARI M 25 Independent

11 KHAJA SAMEEUDDIN KHAJA MOINUDDIN M 25 Independent

12 JADHAV VENKAT RAO GYANOBA RAO M 25 Independent

13 DONGAPURE SHANT KUMAR M 25 Independent

14 DEVENDRAPPA SANGRAMAPPA PATIL M 25 Independent

15 NARSAPPA MUTHANGI M 25 Independent

16 PARMESHWAR RAMCHANDRA M 25 Independent

17 PASHAMIYA ESMAIL SAB M 25 Independent

18 BASWARAJ PAILWAN OKALLI M 25 Independent

19 MANJILE MIYYA PEER SAB QURESH M 25 Independent

20 MD OSMAN ALI LAKHPATI M 25 Independent

21 MUFTI SHAIKH ABDUL GAFFAR QASMI M 25 Independent

22 YEVATE PATIL SHRIMANT M 25 Independent

23 YASHWANTH NARSING M 25 Independent

24 SHIVARAJ TIMMANNA BOKKE M 25 Independent

25 SAMEEUDDIN BANDELI M 25 Independent

26 SURESH SWAMY TALGHATKER M 25 Independent

27 SYED QUBUL ULLA HUSSIANI SAJID M 25 Independent

S10 8 KA KOPPAL 23-Apr-09 1 ANSARI IQBAL M 50 Janata Dal (Secular)

2 BASAVARAJ RAYAREDDY M 53 Indian National Congress

3 SHIVAPUTRAPPA GUMAGERA M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 SHIVARAMAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 ZAKEER M 30 Lok Jan Shakti Party

6 BASAVARAJ KARADI WADDARAHATTI M 27 Janata Dal (United)

7 BHARADWAJ M 63 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

8 ISHWARAPPA J M 52 Independent

9 UPPARA HANUMANTAPPA M 33 Independent

10 GOUSIA BEGUM F 31 Independent

11 CHAKRAVARTI NAYAK T M 70 Independent

12 CHANDRASHEKAR M 37 Independent

13 NAJEER HUSAIN M 41 Independent

14 PUJAR D.H M 42 Independent

15 MAREMMA YANKAPPA F 40 Independent

16 SHARABHAYYA HIREMATH M 27 Independent

17 SHIVAKUMAR NAVALI SIDDAPPA TONTAPUR M 44 Independent

18 HANDI RAFIQSAB M 53 Independent

S10 9 KA BELLARY 23-Apr-09 1 T. NAGENDRA M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 J. SHANTHA F 35 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 N.Y. HANUMANTHAPPA M 69 Indian National Congress

4 CHOWDAPPA M 29 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

5 D. GANGANNA M 59 Independent

6 B. RAMAIAH M 60 Independent

7 A. RAMANJANAPPA M 41 Independent

S10 12 KA UTTARA KANNADA 23-Apr-09 1 ANANTKUMAR HEGDE M 40 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 ALVA MARGARET F 67 Indian National Congress

3 HADAPAD BASAVARAJ DUNDAPPA M 28 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 V D HEGADE M 68 Janata Dal (Secular)

5 ELISH KOTIYAL M 44 Janata Dal (United)

6 D M GURAV M 49 Shivsena

7 ABDUL RASHEED SHAIKH M 44 Independent

8 UDAY BABU KHALVADEKAR M 57 Independent

9 KHAZI RAHMATULLA ABDUL WAHAB M 60 Independent

10 L P M NAIK M 39 Independent

11 YASHWANT TIMMANNA NIPPANIKAR M 58 Independent

S10 18 KA CHITRADURGA 23-Apr-09 1 JANARDHANA SWAMY M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 M JAYANNA M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 DR. B THIPPESWAMY M 37 Indian National Congress

4 M RATHNAKAR M 42 Janata Dal (Secular)

5 SHASHISHEKAR NAIK M 46 Rashtriya Janata Dal

6 M KUMBAIAH M 56 Independent

7 GANESHA M 48 Independent

8 K H DURGASIMHA M 61 Independent

9 RAMACHANDRA M 49 Independent

10 B SUJATHA F 33 Independent

11 HANUMANTHAPPA TEGNOOR M 59 Independent

S10 19 KA TUMKUR 23-Apr-09 1 ASHOK M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 P. KODANDARAMAIAH M 69 Indian National Congress

3 G.S. BASAVARAJU M 67 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 S.P. MUDDAHANUMEGOWDA M 55 Janata Dal (Secular)

5 SREE GOWRISHANKARA SWAMIGALU M 63 Samajwadi Party

6 D.R. NAGARAJA M 53 Independent

7 G. NAGENDRA M 34 Independent

8 NIRANJANA C.S M 29 Independent

9 MOHAMED KHASIM M 47 Independent

10 SHASIBHUSHANA M 34 Independent

S10 23 KA BANGALORE RURAL 23-Apr-09 1 H.D.KUMARASWAMY M 49 Janata Dal (Secular)

2 TEJASVINI GOWDA F 42 Indian National Congress

3 MOHAMED HAFEEZ ULLAH M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 C. P. YOGEESHWARA M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 C.THOPAIAH M 56 Janata Dal (United)

6 I VENKATESWARA REDDY M 55 Pyramid Party of India

7 AGNISHREENIVAS M 30 Independent

8 D.KUMARASWAMY M 43 Independent

9 KUMARASWAMY C M 28 Independent

10 KRISHNAPPA M 46 Independent

11 Y.CHINNAPPA M 33 Independent

12 A CHOWRAPPA M 44 Independent

13 DR. K PADMARAJAN M 50 Independent

14 K.PUTTAMADEGOWDA M 40 Independent

15 T.M.MANCHEGOWDA M 62 Independent

S10 24 KA BANGALORE NORTH 23-Apr-09 1 D. B. CHANDRE GOWDA M 73 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 C. K. JAFFER SHARIEF M 75 Indian National Congress

3 PADMAA K. BHAT F 43 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 R. SURENDRA BABU M 48 Janata Dal (Secular)

5 M. TIPPUVARDHAN M 39 Bharatiya Praja Paksha

6 ANCHAN KHANNA M 34 Independent

7 KANYA KUMAR M 36 Independent

8 G S KUMAR M 68 Independent

9 C. KRISHNAMURTHY M 45 Independent

10 B K CHANDRA M 38 Independent

11 T. R. CHANDRAHASA M 45 Independent

12 ABDUL JALEEL M 39 Independent

13 ZAFER MOHIUDDIN M 48 Independent

14 JOSEPH SOLOMON M 39 Independent

15 L. NAGARAJ M 52 Independent

16 V. PRASANNA KUMAR M 38 Independent

17 H. PILLAIAH M 46 Independent

18 T. B. MADWARAJA M 33 Independent

19 MEER LAYAQ HUSSAIN M 42 Independent

20 K. A. MOHAN M 51 Independent

21 S. M. RAJU M 52 Independent

22 L. LAKSHMAIAH M 64 Independent

23 MU. VENKATESHAIAH M 50 Independent

24 VENKATESA SETTY M 63 Independent

25 H. A. SHIVAKUMAR M 30 Independent

26 K. SATHYANARAYANA M 57 Independent

27 SYED AKBAR BASHA M 50 Independent

28 N. HARISH GOWDA M 33 Independent

S10 25 KA BANGALORE CENTRAL 23-Apr-09 1 ZAMEER AHMED KHAN. B.Z M 43 Janata Dal (Secular)

2 P. C. MOHAN M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 VIJAY RAJA SINGH M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 H.T.SANGLIANA M 67 Indian National Congress

5 IFTHAQUAR ALI BHUTTO M 37 Ambedkar National Congress

6 J.D.ELANGOVAN M 64 Indian Justice Party

7 S M KRISHNA M 44 Bharatiya Praja Paksha

8 B KRISHNA PRASAD M 55 Proutist Sarva Samaj Party

9 A.S. PAUL M 60 Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)

10 D.C. PRAKASH M 41 Karnataka Thamizhar Munnetra Kazhagam

11 K.PRABHAKARA REDDY M 61 Kannada Chalavali Vatal Paksha

12 T.K.PREMKUMAR M 45 Pyramid Party of India

13 ABHIMANI NARENDRA M 50 Independent

14 M.A. ASHWATHA NARAYANA SETTY M 64 Independent

15 K UMA F 46 Independent

16 UMASHANKAR M 42 Independent

17 K.S.S.IYENGAR M 77 Independent

18 B.M.KRISHNAREDDY M 64 Independent

19 S.KODANDARAM M 50 Independent

20 C.V.GIDDAPPA M 55 Independent

21 A.CHANDRASHEKAR M 45 Independent

22 JAYARAMA M 60 Independent

23 K.NARASIMHA M 38 Independent

24 B.K NARAYANA SWAMY M 52 Independent

25 P.PARTHIBAN M 34 Independent

26 MEER LAYAQ HUSSAIN M 42 Independent

27 B.MOHAN VELU M 39 Independent

28 R. RAJ M 49 Independent

29 E. RAMAKRISHNAIAH M 50 Independent

30 K.H.RAMALINGAREDDY M 41 Independent

31 VIJAYA BHASKAR N M 61 Independent

32 DR.D. R.VENKATESH GOWDA M 82 Independent

33 SHAFFI AHMED M 50 Independent

34 S.N. SHARMA M 67 Independent

35 SHASHIKUMAR A.R M 43 Independent

36 K.SHIVARAMANNA M 55 Independent

37 SHAIK BAHADUR M 54 Independent

S10 26 KA BANGALORE SOUTH 23-Apr-09 1 ANANTH KUMAR M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 KRISHNA BYRE GOWDA M 36 Indian National Congress

3 NAHEEDA SALMA S F 47 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 PROF.RADHAKRISHNA M 63 Janata Dal (Secular)

5 B.M.GOVINDRAJ NAIK M 38 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

6 P.JOHNBASCO M 37 Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)

7 VATAL NAGARAJ M 60 Kannada Chalavali Vatal Paksha

8 B.SHIVARAMAPPA M 62 Pyramid Party of India

9 ABHIMAANI NARENDRA M 50 Independent

10 KHADER ALI KHAN M 39 Independent

11 GANESH HANUMANTARAO MOKHASHI M 58 Independent

12 CAPT. G.R. GOPINATH M 57 Independent

13 K.C.JANARDHAN M 46 Independent

14 DR.JAYALAKSHMI.H.G. F 48 Independent

15 K.M.NARAYANA M 54 Independent

16 MADESH.C M 40 Independent

17 MURALIDHARA.D.J. M 44 Independent

18 RAVI KUMARA.T. M 26 Independent

19 SUGANDHARAJE URS M 59 Independent

20 SANTHOSH MIN.B M 33 Independent

S10 27 KA CHIKKBALLAPUR 23-Apr-09 1 C.ASWATHANARAYANA M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 C.R.MANOHAR M 29 Janata Dal (Secular)

3 M.VEERAPPA MOILY M 69 Indian National Congress

4 HENNURU LAKSHMINARAYANA M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH M 40 Pyramid Party of India

6 M.VENKATESH M 55 Bharatiya Praja Paksha

7 H.R.SHIVAKUMAR M 39 Lok Jan Shakti Party

8 KRISHNAMURTHY .T M 70 Independent

9 K.S.CHANDRASHEKARA RAO (AZAD) M 54 Independent

10 L.NAGARAJ M 52 Independent

11 G.NARAYANAPPA M 62 Independent

12 A.N.BACHEGOWDA M 50 Independent

13 G.B.MUTHUKUMAR M 62 Independent

14 M.MUNIVENKATAIAH M 64 Independent

15 M.RAMESH M 30 Independent

16 RAVI GOKRE M 32 Independent

17 G.N. RAVI M 45 Independent

18 K.VENKATAREDDY M 36 Independent

19 B.SHIVARAJA M 40 Independent

20 Y.A.SIDDALINGEGOWDA M 42 Independent

S10 28 KA KOLAR 23-Apr-09 1 G.CHANDRANNA M 56 Janata Dal (Secular)

2 K.H.MUNIYAPPA M 61 Indian National Congress

3 N.MUNISWAMY M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 LAKSHMI SHANMUGAM F 56 Nationalist Congress Party

5 D.S.VEERAIAH M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party

6 K.R.DEVARAJA M 51 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

7 B.M.KRISHNAPPA M 59 Independent

8 M.R.GANTAPPA M 46 Independent

9 P.V.CHANGALARAYAPPA M 38 Independent

10 P.CHANDRAPPA M 42 Independent

11 V.JAYARAMA M 59 Independent

12 JAYARAMAPPA M 45 Independent

13 NAGARATHNA M. F 47 Independent

14 M.NAGARAJA M 35 Independent

15 NARAYANASWAMY M 49 Independent

16 K.NARAYANASWAMY M 37 Independent

17 C.K.MUNIYAPPA M 43 Independent

18 M.RAVI KUMAR M 36 Independent

19 M.VENKATASWAMY M 55 Independent

20 K.VENKATESH M 40 Independent

21 SRINIVASA T.O. M 37 Independent

22 SRINIVASA P. M 42 Independent

S12 8 MP KHAJURAHO 23-Apr-09 1 JAYAWANT SINGH M 49 Samajwadi Party

2 JEETENDRA SINGH M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 RAJA PATERYA M 49 Indian National Congress

4 SEWA LAL PATEL M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 M. SHAKIL M 38 Gondwana Mukti Sena

6 SAROJ BACHCHAN NAYAK F 56 Janata Dal (United)

7 SURYA BHAN SINGH ‘YADAV GURUJI’ M 75 All India Forward Bloc

8 AKEEL KHAN M 43 Independent

9 AKANCHHA JAIN F 34 Independent

10 KRISHNA SHARAN SINGH (RAJA BHAIYA) M 36 Independent

11 NARENDRA KUMAR M 54 Independent

12 RAJENDRA AHIRWAR M 43 Independent

13 RAM NATH LODHI M 41 Independent

14 SHABNAM (MAUSI) F 48 Independent

15 SHUKL SITARAM M 48 Independent

S12 9 MP SATNA 23-Apr-09 1 GANESH SINGH M 46 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 PT. RAJARAM TRIPATHI M 56 Samajwadi Party

3 SUKHLAL KUSHWAHA M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 SUDHIR SINGH TOMAR M 41 Indian National Congress

5 ONKAR SINGH M 56 Akhil Bharatiya Hind Kranti Party

6 GIRJA SINGH PATEL M 49 Apna Dal

7 CHHOTELAL SINGH GOND M 65 Gondwana Mukti Sena

8 PRAMILA F 43 Republican Party of India (A)

9 B BALLABH CHARYA M 38 Advait Ishwasyam Congress

10 RAJESH SINGH BAGHEL M 41 Gondvana Gantantra Party

11 SHOBHNATH SEN M 29 Lok Jan Shakti Party

12 SUNDERLAL CHAUDHARI M 64 Indian Justice Party

13 ASHOK KUMAR KUSHWAHA M 33 Independent

14 ASHOK KUSHWAHA M 28 Independent

15 CHHOTELAL M 59 Independent

16 BHAIYALAL URMALIYA M 62 Independent

17 MANISH KUMAR JAIN M 31 Independent

18 MUNNI KRANTI F 44 Independent

19 RAMVISHWAS BASORE M 38 Independent

20 RAM SAJIVAN M 46 Independent

21 RAMAYAN CHAUDHARI M 39 Independent

S12 10 MP REWA 23-Apr-09 1 CHANDRA MANI TRIPATHI M 62 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 DEORAJ SINGH PATEL M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 PUSHPRAJ SINGH M 48 Samajwadi Party

4 SUNDER LAL TIWARI M 51 Indian National Congress

5 BADRI PRASAD KUSHWAHA M 47 Apna Dal

6 RAMKISHAN NIRAT (SAKET) M 32 Republican Party of India (A)

7 RAMAYAN PRASAD PATEL M 42 Yuva Vikas Party

8 VIMALA SONDHIA F 53 Lok Jan Shakti Party

9 SALMA F 33 All India Forward Bloc

10 MD. AKEEL KHAN (BACHCHA BHAI) M 34 Independent

11 JAIKARAN SAKET M 48 Independent

12 BRAHMDUTTMISHRA ALIAS CHHOTE MURAITHA M 46 Independent

13 SUKHENDRA PRATAP M 44 Independent

14 SUNDAR LAL M 37 Independent

15 HIRALAL VISHWAKARMA M 56 Independent

S12 11 MP SIDHI 23-Apr-09 1 ASHOK KUMAR SHAH M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 INDRAJEET KUMAR M 61 Indian National Congress

3 GOVIND PRASAD MISHRA M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 MANIK SINGH M 43 Samajwadi Party

5 LOLAR SINGH URETI M 29 Gondwana Mukti Sena

6 VEENA SINGH NETI F 34 Gondvana Gantantra Party

7 BABOOLAL JAISWAL M 39 Independent

8 MADAN MOHAN JAISWAL (ADVOCATE) M 36 Independent

9 MAHENDRA BHAIYA (DIKSHIT) M 42 Independent

10 RAMAKANT PANDEY MALAIHNA M 63 Independent

11 VEENA SINGH (VEENA DIDI) F 56 Independent

S12 12 MP SHAHDOL 23-Apr-09 1 CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH (BABA SAHAB) M 51 Samajwadi Party

2 NARENDRA SINGH MARAVI M 29 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 MANOHAR SINGH MARAVI M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 RAJESH NANDINI SINGH F 52 Indian National Congress

5 SADAN SINGH BHARIA M 39 Communist Party of India

6 KRISHN PAL SINGH PAVEL M 29 Lok Jan Shakti Party

7 GANPAT GOND M 38 Gondwana Mukti Sena

8 RAM RATAN SINGH PAVLE M 28 Gondvana Gantantra Party

S12 13 MP JABALPUR 23-Apr-09 1 AZIZ QURESHI M 64 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA M 40 Samajwadi Party

3 RAKESH SINGH M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 ADVOCATE RAMESHWAR NEEKHRA M 61 Indian National Congress

5 MEERCHAND PATEL (KACHHVAHA) M 63 Republican Party of India

6 RAVI MAHOBIA (KUNDAM) M 29 Gondvana Gantantra Party

7 RAJKUMARI SINGH F 40 Lok Jan Shakti Party

8 HARI SINGH MARAVI M 36 Gondwana Mukti Sena

9 DR. MUKESH MEHROTRA M 57 Independent

10 RAKESH SONKAR (PRAMUKH DHAI AKSHAR) M 39 Independent

11 SUNIL PATEL M 38 Independent

S12 14 MP MANDLA 23-Apr-09 1 JALSO DHURWEY F 25 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 FAGGAN SINGH KULASTE M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 BASORI SINGH MASRAM M 59 Indian National Congress

4 UDAL SINGH DHURWEY M 35 Loktanrik Sarkar Party

5 JHANK SINGH KUSHRE M 37 Gondvana Gantantra Party

6 PREM SINGH MARAVI M 35 Gondwana Mukti Sena

7 BHAGAT SINGH VARKEDE M 45 Lok Jan Shakti Party

8 MANESHWARI NAIK F 65 Republican Party of India (A)

9 SUNITA NETI F 33 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

10 CHANDRA SHEKHAR DHURWEY M 46 Independent

11 CHAMBAL SING MARAWEE M 62 Independent

12 DEV SINGH BHALAVI M 25 Independent

13 SHIVCHARAN UIKEY M 26 Independent

14 SAHDEO PRASAD MARAVI M 43 Independent

S12 15 MP BALAGHAT 23-Apr-09 1 AJAB LAL M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 KISHOR SAMRITE M 42 Samajwadi Party

3 KANKAR MUNJARE M 52 Rashtriya Janata Dal

4 K. D. DESHMUKH M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 VISHVESHWAR BHAGAT M 57 Indian National Congress

6 KALPANA GOPAL WASNIK F 38 Republican Party of India (A)

7 DARBU SINGH UIKEY M 37 Gondwana Mukti Sena

8 BHAIYA BALKRISHNA M 53 Gondvana Gantantra Party

9 ADVOCATE AZHAR UL ALIM M 58 Independent

10 ANJU ASHOK UIKEY F 34 Independent

11 GOVARDHAN PATLE URF HITLAR M 75 Independent

12 JITENDRA MESHRAM M 37 Independent

13 DHANESHWAR LILHARE M 40 Independent

14 NYAZMIR KHAN M 32 Independent

15 POORANLAL LODHI M 37 Independent

16 MANSINGH BISEN M 59 Independent

17 SANDEEP SANTRAM M 31 Independent

18 SHRIRAM THAKUR M 58 Independent

S12 16 MP CHHINDWARA 23-Apr-09 1 KAMAL NATH M 62 Indian National Congress

2 MAROT RAO KHAVASE M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 RAO SAHEB SHINDE M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 JOGILAL IRPACHI M 48 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

5 PARDHESHI HARTAPSAH TIRKAM M 40 Gondwana Mukti Sena

6 BALVEER SINGH YADAV M 30 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

7 RAMKISHAN PAL M 62 Republican Party of India (A)

8 SATAP SHA UIKEY M 35 Gondvana Gantantra Party

9 ABDUL SHAMAD KHAN M 45 Independent

10 AMRITLAL PATHAK RAGHUVAR M 70 Independent

11 ASHARAM DEHARIYA M 33 Independent

12 KAMALNATH (MAYAWADI-PARASIA) M 31 Independent

13 GANARAM UIKEY M 53 Independent

14 AZAD CHANDRASHEKHER PANDOLE SAMAJ SEVAK M 42 Independent

15 JAGDISH BAIS M 35 Independent

16 TULSIRAM SURYAWANSHI M 62 Independent

17 DUARAM UIKEY M 40 Independent

18 DHANPAL BHALAVI M 35 Independent

19 DHANRAJ JAMBHATKAR M 37 Independent

20 NARESH KUMAR YUVNATI M 33 Independent

21 NIKHILESH DHURVEY M 30 Independent

22 PITRAM UIKEY M 48 Independent

23 PRAVINDRA NAURATI M 37 Independent

24 MANMOHAN SHAH BATTI M 46 Independent

25 R.K. MARKAM M 28 Independent

26 SHOAIB KHAN M 44 Independent

27 SUKMAN INVATI M 42 Independent

28 SUBHASH SHUKLA M 40 Independent

S12 17 MP HOSHANGABAD 23-Apr-09 1 UDAY PRATAP SINGH M 44 Indian National Congress

2 ADV.B.M.KAUSHIK M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 HAJAEE SYID MUEEN UDDIN M 47 Samajwadi Party

4 RAMPAL SINGH M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 DINESH KUMAR AHIRWAR M 42 Independent

6 BHARAT KUMAR CHOUREY M 29 Independent

7 MOHAMMD ABDULLA M 54 Independent

8 RAKHI GUPTA F 31 Independent

9 RAMPAL M 62 Independent

10 SUDAMA PRASAD M 55 Independent

S12 18 MP VIDISHA 23-Apr-09 1 DR.PREMSHANKAR SHARMA M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 CHOUDHARY MUNABBAR SALIM M 50 Samajwadi Party

3 SUSHMA SWARAJ F 57 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 BHAI MUNSHILAL SILAWAT M 25 Republican Party of India (A)

5 RAMGOPAL MALVIYA M 35 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

6 HARBHAJAN JANGRE M 33 Lok Jan Shakti Party

7 GANESHRAM LODHI M 44 Independent

8 RAJESHWAR SINGH YADAV (RAO) M 39 Independent

S12 19 MP BHOPAL 23-Apr-09 1 ER. ASHOK NARAYAN SINGH M 53 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 KAILASH JOSHI M 79 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 MHOD. MUNAWAR KHAN KAUSAR M 44 Samajwadi Party

4 SURENDRA SINGH THAKUR M 55 Indian National Congress

5 ASHOK PAWAR M 47 Prajatantrik Samadhan Party

6 AHIRWAR LAKHANLAL PURVI M 42 Republican Party of India (A)

7 KARAN KUMAR KAROSIA URF KARAN JEEJA M 41 Gondvana Gantantra Party

8 RADHESHYAM KULASTE M 38 Gondwana Mukti Sena

9 RAMDAS GHOSLE M 54 Republican Party of India (Democratic )

10 SANJEEV SINGHAL M 42 Savarn Samaj Party

11 ANIL SINGH M 30 Independent

12 AMAR SINGH M 72 Independent

13 KAPIL DUBEY M 37 Independent

14 D. C. GUJARKAR M 52 Independent

15 DARSHAN SINGH RATHORE M 53 Independent

16 BRAJENDRA CHATURVEDI URF GAPPU CHATURVEDI M 35 Independent

17 DR. MAHESH YADAV ‘AMAN GANDHI’ M 40 Independent

18 MUKESH SEN M 32 Independent

19 MEHDI SIR M 30 Independent

20 RAJESH KUMAR YADAV M 42 Independent

21 RAM SAHAY YATRI (SHRIVASTAVA) URF RASHTRAVADI YATRI M 79 Independent

22 SHAHNAWAZ M 59 Independent

23 SHIV NARAYAN SINGH BAGWARE M 60 Independent

S12 29 MP BETUL 23-Apr-09 1 OJHARAM EVANE M 54 Indian National Congress

2 JYOTI DHURVE F 43 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 RAMA KAKODIA M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 DR. SUKHDEV SINGH CHOUHAN M 42 Samajwadi Party

5 KALLUSINGH UIKEY M 59 Gondwana Mukti Sena

6 KADMU SINGH KUMARE (K.S.KUMARE) M 59 Gondvana Gantantra Party

7 GULABRAV M 53 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

8 MANGAL SINGH LOKHANDE M 51 Samajwadi Jan Parishad

9 SUSHILKUMAR ALIS BALUBHAIYYA M 39 Republican Party of India (A)

10 IMRATLAL MARKAM M 58 Independent

11 KAMAL SING M 45 Independent

12 KADAKSHING VADIVA M 27 Independent

13 KRISHNA GOPAL PARTE M 35 Independent

14 MOTIRAM MAVASE M 48 Independent

15 ADHIVAKTA SHANKAR PENDAM M 66 Independent

16 SUNIL KUMAR KAWADE M 27 Independent

S13 1 MH NANDURBAR 23-Apr-09 1 GAVIT MANIKRAO HODLYA M 75 Indian National Congress

2 NATAWADKAR SUHAS JYANT M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 PADVI BABITA KARMSINGH F 36 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 KOKANI MANJULABAI SAKHARAM F 59 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5 GAVIT SHARAD KRUSHNRAO M 46 Samajwadi Party

6 ABHIJIT AATYA VASAVE M 30 Independent

7 KOLI RAJU RAMDAS M 34 Independent

S13 2 MH DHULE 23-Apr-09 1 AMARISHBHAI RASIKLAL PATEL M 56 Indian National Congress

2 RIZWAN MO.AKBAR M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 SONAWANE PRATAP NARAYANRAO M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 ANIL ANNA GOTE M 61 Loksangram

5 ANSARI MOHD. ISMAIL MOHD. IBRAHIM M 37 Bharatiya Minorities Suraksha Mahasangh

6 ARIF AHMED SHAIKH JAFHAR M 99 Navbharat Nirman Party

7 KAVAYATRI-SONKANYA THAKUR RAJANI BAGWAN F 49 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

8 NIHAL AHMED MOLVI. MOHAMMED USMAN M 81 Janata Dal (Secular)

9 MD. ISMAIL JUMMAN M 49 Independent

10 KISHOR PITAMBAR AHIRE M 28 Independent

11 GAZI ATEZAD AHMED MUBEEN AHMED KHAN M 57 Independent

12 GAIKWAD PATIL BHUSHAN BAJIRAO M 28 Independent

13 DADASO. PANDITRAO PATIL KOKALEKAR M 55 Independent

14 SHEVALE PATIL SANDEEP JIBHAU M 31 Independent

15 SONAWANE PANDIT UTTAMRAO M 42 Independent

S13 3 MH JALGAON 23-Apr-09 1 A.T. NANA PATIL M 47 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 ADV. MATIN AHMED M 38 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 ADV. VASANTRAO JIVANRAO MORE M 63 Nationalist Congress Party

4 ATMARAM SURSING JADHAV (ENGG.) M 33 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

5 JADHAV NATTHU SHANKAR M 56 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6 JANGALU DEVRAM SHIRSATH M 65 Hindustan Janta Party

7 NANNAWARE CHAITANYA PANDIT M 33 Prabuddha Republican Party

8 LAXMAN SHIVAJI SHIRSATH (PATIL) M 42 Krantisena Maharashtra

9 ANIL PITAMBAR WAGH (SIR) M 38 Independent

10 KANTILAL CHHAGAN NAIK (BANJARA) M 39 Independent

11 WAGH SUDHAKAR ATMARAM M 26 Independent

12 SHALIGRAM SHIVRAM MAHAJAN (DEORE) M 49 Independent

13 SALIMODDIN ISAMODDIN SHE.(MISTARI) M 56 Independent

S13 4 MH RAVER 23-Apr-09 1 PATIL SURESH CHINDHU M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 ADV. RAVINDRA PRALHADRAO PATIL M 54 Nationalist Congress Party

3 HARIBHAU MADHAV JAWALE M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 TELI SHAIKH ISMAIL HAJI HASAN M 57 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5 BAPU SAHEBRAO SONAWANE M 45 Prabuddha Republican Party

6 MARATHE BHIMRAO PARBAT M 51 Krantisena Maharashtra

7 SHIVAVEER DNYANESHWAR VITTHAL AMALE URPH AMALE SARKAR M 26 Shivrajya Party

8 IQBAL ALAUDDIN TADVI M 41 Independent

9 UTTAM KASHIRAM INGALE M 36 Independent

10 KOLI SANTOSH GOKUL M 25 Independent

11 FIRKE SURESH KACHARU EX ACP (CRPF) M 58 Independent

12 MAKBUL FARID SK. M 36 Independent

13 MOHD. MUNAWWAR MOHD. HANIF M 45 Independent

14 MORE HIRAMAN BHONAJI M 41 Independent

15 D.D. WANI (PHOTOGRAPHER) (DYNESHWAR DIWAKAR WANI) M 43 Independent

16 VIVEK SHARAD PATIL M 41 Independent

17 SHAIKH RAMJAN SHAIKH KARIM M 40 Independent

18 SUJATA IBRAHIM TADAVI F 45 Independent

19 SANJAY PRALADH KANDELKAR M 34 Independent

S13 18 MH JALNA 23-Apr-09 1 DR. KALE KALYAN VAIJINATHRAO M 46 Indian National Congress

2 DANVE RAOSAHEB DADARAO M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 RATHOD RAJPALSINH GABRUSINH M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 AAPPASAHEB RADHAKISAN KUDHEKAR M 29 Krantisena Maharashtra

5 KISAN BALVANTA BORDE M 61 Prabuddha Republican Party

6 KHARAT ASHOK RAMRAO M 51 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

7 TAWAR KAILAS BHAUSAHEB M 45 Swatantra Bharat Paksha

8 DR. DILAWAR MIRZA BAIG M 29 Indian Union Muslim League

9 BHOJNE BABASAHEB SANGAM M 37 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

10 MISAL TUKARAM BABURAOJI M 48 Samajwadi Party

11 RATNAPARKHE ARCHANA SUDHAKAR F 31 Republician Party of India Ektawadi

12 SUBHASH FAKIRA SALVE M 43 Ambedkar National Congress

13 SAYYAD MAKSUD NOOR M 42 Lok Jan Shakti Party

14 KOLTE MANOJ NEMINATH M 26 Independent

15 KHANDU HARISHCHANDRA LAGHANE M 30 Independent

16 NADE DNYANESHWAR DAGDU M 41 Independent

17 BABASAHEB PATIL SHINDE M 53 Independent

18 SONWANE ASHOK VITTHAL M 45 Independent

19 S. HUSAIN AHEMAD M 37 Independent

S13 19 MH AURANGABAD 23-Apr-09 1 UTTAMSINGH RAJDHARSINGH PAWAR M 58 Indian National Congress

2 CHANDRAKANT KHAIRE M 57 Shivsena

3 SAYYED SALIM SAYYED YUSUF M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 JAHAGIRDAR MOHMAD AYUB GULAM M 55 Samajwadi Party

5 JYOTI RAMCHANDRA UPADHAYAY F 35 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6 PANDURANG WAMANRAO NARWADE M 39 Prabuddha Republican Party

7 BHIMSEN RAMBHAU KAMBLE M 44 Republician Party of India Ektawadi

8 MANIK RAMU SHINDE M 34 Krantisena Maharashtra

9 SHAIKH HARUN MALIK SAHEB M 50 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

10 UTTAM MANIK KIRTIKAR M 30 Independent

11 EJAZ KHAN BISMILLAH KHAN M 33 Independent

12 KAZI MUSHIRODDIN TAJODDIN M 63 Independent

13 KRISHNA DEVIDAS JADHAV M 25 Independent

14 JADHAV TOTARAM GANPAT M 51 Independent

15 JADHAV VISHNU SURYABHAN M 50 Independent

16 JADHAV SUBHASH RUPCHAND M 33 Independent

17 BANKAR MILIND RANUJI M 38 Independent

18 SHANTIGIRIJI MOUNGIRIJI MAHARAJ M 50 Independent

19 SHAIKH RAFIQ SHAIKH RAZZAK M 30 Independent

20 SHAIKH SALIM PATEL WAHEGAONKAR M 38 Independent

21 SAYYED RAUF SAYYED ZAMIR M 54 Independent

22 SUBHASH KISANRAO PATIL (JADHAV) M 47 Independent

S13 20 MH DINDORI 23-Apr-09 1 GAVIT JEEVA PANDU M 60 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 GANGURDE DIPAK SHANKAR M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 CHAVAN HARISHCHANDRA DEORAM M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 ZIRWAL NARHARI SITARAM M 50 Nationalist Congress Party

5 PAWAR SAMPAT WAMAN M 30 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6 GANGURDE BALU KISAN M 37 Independent

7 BHIKA HARISING BARDE M 75 Independent

8 VIJAY NAMDEO PAWAR M 45 Independent

9 SHANKAR DEORAM GANGUDE M 51 Independent

S13 21 MH NASHIK 23-Apr-09 1 GAIKWAD DATTA NAMDEO M 47 Shivsena

2 SAMEER BHUJBAL M 35 Nationalist Congress Party

3 SHRIMAHANT SUDHIRDAS MAHARAJ M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 KAILAS MADHUKAR CHAVAN M 28 Indian Justice Party

5 GODSE HEMANT TUKARAM M 38 Maharashtra Navnirman sena

6 JADHAV NAMDEO BHIKAJI M 57 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

7 RAYATE VIJAY SAKHARAM ( RAYATE SIR) M 52 Hindustan Janta Party

8 AD. GULVE RAMNATH SANTUJI M 42 Independent

9 DATTU GONYA GAIKWAD M 50 Independent

10 PRAVINCHANDRA DATTARAM DETHE M 42 Independent

11 BHARAT HIRMAN PARDESHI M 37 Independent

12 RAJENDRA SAMPATRAO KADU M 35 Independent

S13 32 MH RAIGAD 23-Apr-09 1 ANANT GEETE M 58 Shivsena

2 BARRISTER A.R. ANTULAY M 80 Indian National Congress

3 MOHITE KIRAN BABURAO M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 EKANATH ARJUN PATIL M 48 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

5 ADV. PRAVIN MADHUKAR THAKUR M 39 Independent

6 DR. SIDDHARTH PATIL M 54 Independent

7 SUNIL BHASKAR NAIK M 51 Independent

S13 33 MH MAVAL 23-Apr-09 1 PANSARE AZAM FAKEERBHAI M 48 Nationalist Congress Party

2 BABAR GAJANAN DHARMSHI M 66 Shivsena

3 MISHRA UMAKANT RAMESHWAR M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 AYU. DEEPALI NIVRUTTI CHAVAN F 35 Prabuddha Republican Party

5 PRADIP PANDURANG KOCHAREKAR M 49 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

6 ADV.SHIVSHANKAR DATTATRAY SHINDE M 31 Krantisena Maharashtra

7 ISHWAR DATTATRAY JADHAV M 46 Independent

8 JAGANNATH PANDURANG KHARGE M 38 Independent

9 DOLE BHIMRAJ NIVRUTTI M 38 Independent

10 ADVOCATE TUKARAM WAMANRAO BANSODE M 64 Independent

11 TANTARPALE GOPAL YASHWANTRAO M 43 Independent

12 ADVOCATE PRAMOD MAHADEV GORE M 56 Independent

13 BHAPKAR MARUTI SAHEBRAO M 38 Independent

14 MAHENDRA PRABHAKAR TIWARI M 41 Independent

15 BRO. MANUAL DESOZA M 45 Independent

16 YASHWANT NARAYAN DESAI M 42 Independent

17 SHAKEEL RAJBHAI SHAIKH M 38 Independent

18 HARIBHAU DADAJI SHINDE M 70 Independent

S13 34 MH PUNE 23-Apr-09 1 ANIL SHIROLE M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 KALMADI SURESH M 64 Indian National Congress

3 D S K ALIAS D.S.KULKARNI M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 ARUN BHATIA M 66 Peoples Guardian

5 GULAB TATYA WAGHMODE M 47 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6 BAGBAN JAVED KASIM M 26 Indian Union Muslim League

7 VIKRAMADITYA OMPRAKASH DHIMAN M 40 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

8 VINOD ANAND SINH M 55 Proutist Sarva Samaj Party

9 SHIROLE RANJEET SHRIKANT M 32 Maharashtra Navnirman sena

10 SAVITA HAJARE F 46 Pyramid Party of India

11 SANGHARSH ARUN APTE M 28 Prabuddha Republican Party

12 AJAY VASANT PAITHANKAR M 49 Independent

13 ADAGALE BHAUSAHEB RAMCHANDRA M 48 Independent

14 ASHOK GANPAT PALKHE ALIAS SUTAR M 45 Independent

15 KAMTAM ISWAR SAMBHAYYA M 67 Independent

16 KULKARNI KAUSTUBH SHASHIKANT M 26 Independent

17 KHAN AMANULLA MOHMOD AL M 55 Independent

18 KHAN NISSAR TAJ AHMAD M 44 Independent

19 P. K. CHAVAN M 80 Independent

20 CHOUDHARI SUNIL GULABRAO M 41 Independent

21 CHOURE VILAS CHINTAMAN M 45 Independent

22 TATYA ALIAS NARAYAN SHANKAR WAMBHIRE M 51 Independent

23 TAMBOLI SHABBIR SAJJANBHAI M 52 Independent

24 DATTATRAYA GANESH TALGERI M 61 Independent

25 BAGADE SACHIN MARUTI M 29 Independent

26 BALU ALIAS ANIL SHIROLE M 28 Independent

27 BHARAT MANOHAR GAVALI M 65 Independent

28 BHAGWAT RAGHUNATH KAMBLE M 35 Independent

29 RAJENDRA BHAGAT ALIAS JITU BHAI M 29 Independent

30 VIKRAM NARENDRA BOKE M 53 Independent

31 SHINDE RAJENDRA BABURAO M 44 Independent

32 SHAIKH ALTAF KARIM M 48 Independent

33 SHRIKANT MADHUSUDAN JAGTAP M 33 Independent

34 SARDESAI KISHORKUMAR RAGHUNATH M 42 Independent

35 ADV.SUBHASH NARHAR GODSE M 59 Independent

36 SANTOSH ALIAS SOMNATH KALU PAWAR M 38 Independent

S13 35 MH BARAMATI 23-Apr-09 1 KUDALEPATIL VIVEK ANANT M 40 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 KANTA JAYSING NALAWADE F 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 SUPRIYA SULE F 39 Nationalist Congress Party

4 MAYAWATI AMAR CHITRE F 31 Bharatiya Minorities Suraksha Mahasangh

5 SHELAR SANGEETA PANDURANG F 33 Krantisena Maharashtra

6 SACHIN VITTHAL AHIRE M 29 Prabuddha Republican Party

7 SAMPAT MARUTI TAKALE M 54 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

8 GHORPADE SAVEETA ASHOK F 29 Independent

9 TATYA ALIAS NARAYAN SHANKAR WAMBHIRE M 51 Independent

10 TANTARPALE GOPAL YESHWANTRAO M 43 Independent

11 DEEPAK SHANKAR BHAPKAR M 26 Independent

12 BHIMA ANNA KADALE M 31 Independent

13 MRUNALEENI JAYRAJ KAKADE F 34 Independent

14 YOGESH SONABA RANDHEER M 39 Independent

15 SHIVAJI JAYSING KOKARE M 58 Independent

16 SURESH BABURAO VEER M 62 Independent

17 SANGITA SHRIMAN BHUMKAR F 30 Independent

S13 36 MH SHIRUR 23-Apr-09 1 ADHALRAO SHIVAJI DATTATRAY M 52 Shivsena

2 ZAGADE YASHWANT SITARAM M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 VILAS VITHOBA LANDE M 47 Nationalist Congress Party

4 PALLAVI MOHAN HARSHE F 27 Prabuddha Republican Party

5 SHELAR DNYANOBA SHRIPATI M 57 Republican Presidium Party of India

6 SURESH MULCHAND KANKARIA (MAMA) M 57 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7 ABHANG KONDIBHAU BHIMAJI M 48 Independent

8 KARANDE CHANGDEO NAMDEO M 43 Independent

9 KALURAM RAGHUNATH TAPKIR M 52 Independent

10 RAM DHARMA DAMBALE M 37 Independent

11 LANDE VILAS MHATARBA M 37 Independent

S13 37 MH AHMADNAGAR 23-Apr-09 1 KARDILE SHIVAJI BHANUDAS M 50 Nationalist Congress Party

2 KARBHARI WAMAN SHIRSAT ALIAS K.V. SHIRSAT M 65 Communist Party of India

3 GADAKH TUKARAM GANGADHAR M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 GANDHI DILIPKUMAR MANSUKHLAL M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 KAZI SAJID MUJIR M 41 Republician Party of India Ektawadi

6 HAKE BHANUDAS KISAN M 55 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7 HOLE BHANUDAS NAMDEO M 48 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

8 ARUN KAHAR M 45 Independent

9 AVINASH MALHARRAO GHODAKE M 40 Independent

10 KHAIRE ARJUN DEORAO M 39 Independent

11 GAIKWAD BALASAHEB RAMCHANDRA M 35 Independent

12 NAUSHAD ANSAR SHAIKH F 39 Independent

13 PROF. MAHENDRA DADA SHINDE M 29 Independent

14 RAUT EKNATH BABASAHEB M 56 Independent

15 RAJIV APPASAHEB RAJALE M 39 Independent

S13 38 MH SHIRDI 23-Apr-09 1 KACHARU NAGU WAGHMARE M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 WAKCHOURE BHAUSAHEB RAJARAM M 59 Shivsena

3 ATHAWALE RAMDAS BANDU M 52 Republican Party of India

4 DHOTRE SUCHIT CHINTAMANI M 25 Krantisena Maharashtra

5 SATISH BALASAHEB PALGHADMAL M 26 Prabuddha Republican Party

6 ADHAGALE RAJENDRA NAMDEV M 39 Independent

7 KAMBALE RAMESH ANKUSH M 32 Independent

8 GAIKWAD APPASAHEB GANGADHAR M 64 Independent

9 BAGUL BALU DASHARATH M 34 Independent

10 MEDHE PRAFULLAKUMAR MURLIDHAR M 46 Independent

11 RAKSHE ANNASAHEB EKNATH M 43 Independent

12 RUPWATE PREMANAND DAMODHAR M 65 Independent

13 LODHE SHARAD LAXAMAN M 42 Independent

14 WAGH GANGADHAR RADHAJI M 60 Independent

15 VAIRAGHAR SUDHIR NATHA M 38 Independent

16 SABALE ANIL DAMODHAR M 40 Independent

17 SANDIP BHASKAR GOLAP M 29 Independent

S13 39 MH BEED 23-Apr-09 1 KOKATE RAMESH BABURAO (ADASKAR) M 42 Nationalist Congress Party

2 MASKE MACHHINDRA BABURAO M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 MUNDE GOPINATHRAO PANDURANG M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 KHALGE KACHRU SANTRAMJI M 48 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5 GURAV KALYAN BHANUDAS M 62 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

6 TATE ASHOK SANTRAM M 50 Ambedkarist Republican Party

7 NIKALJE SHEELATAI MAHENDRA F 34 Prabuddha Republican Party

8 PRAMOD ALIAS PARMESHWAR SAKHARAM MOTE M 32 Krantisena Maharashtra

9 BABURAO NARAYANRAO KAGADE M 63 Ambedkar National Congress

10 DR. SHIVAJIRAO KISANRAO SHENDGE M 39 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

11 KAMAL KONDIRAM NIMBALKAR F 39 Independent

12 KAMBLE DEEPAK DYANOBA M 32 Independent

13 KHAN SIKANDAR KHAN HUSSAIN KHAN M 58 Independent

14 GUJAR KHAN MIRZA KHAN M 28 Independent

15 ADV.NATKAR RAMRAO SHESHRAO M 61 Independent

16 PATHAN GAFARKHAN JABBARKHAN M 42 Independent

17 MAHAMMAD AKARAM MAHAMMAD SALIMUDDIN BAGWAN M 34 Independent

18 RAMESH VISHVANATH KOKATE M 32 Independent

19 SAYYED MINHAJ ALI WAJED ALI (PENDKHJUR WALE) M 34 Independent

20 SAYYED SALIM FATTU M 47 Independent

21 SARDAR KHAN SULTANABABA M 26 Independent

S13 40 MH OSMANABAD 23-Apr-09 1 GAIKWAD RAVINDRA VISHWANATH M 49 Shivsena

2 DIVAKAR YASHWANT NAKADE M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 PATIL PADAMSINHA BAJIRAO M 68 Nationalist Congress Party

4 JAGTAP BHAGWAN DADARAO M 70 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5 TARKASE DHANANJAY MURLIDHAR M 34 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

6 TAWADE PRAKASH TANAJIRAO M 28 Krantisena Maharashtra

7 BANSODE GUNDERAO SHIVRAM M 73 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

8 BABA FAIJODDIN SHAIKH M 28 Nelopa(United)

9 BHOSLE REVAN VISHWANATH M 45 Janata Dal (Secular)

10 MUJAWAR SHAHABUDDIN NABIRASUL M 37 Prabuddha Republican Party

11 RAJENDRA RANDITRAO HIPPERGEKAR M 38 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

12 ANGARSHA SALIM BABULAL M 62 Independent

13 GAIKWAD UMAJI PANDURANG M 39 Independent

14 CHAVAN BABU VITHOBA M 40 Independent

15 CHANDANE PINTU PANDURANG M 35 Independent

16 DADASAHEB SHANKARRAO JETITHOR M 50 Independent

17 NITURE ARUN BHAURAO M 38 Independent

18 PATEL HASHAM ISMAIL M 55 Independent

19 PAWAR HARIDAS MANIKRAO M 35 Independent

20 PATIL MAHADEO DNYANDEO M 50 Independent

21 BALAJI BAPURAO TUPSUNDARE M 37 Independent

22 ADV. BHAUSAHEB ANIL BELURE (BEMBLIKAR) M 29 Independent

23 MUNDHE PATRIL PADAMSINHA VIJAYSINHA M 29 Independent

24 YEVATE-PATIL SHRIMANT M 55 Independent

25 SANDIPAN RAMA ZOMBADE M 41 Independent

S13 41 MH LATUR 23-Apr-09 1 AAWALE JAYWANT GANGARAM M 99 Indian National Congress

2 GAIKWAD SUNIL BALIRAM M 99 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 ADV. BABASAHEB SADSHIVRAO GAIKWAD M 99 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 ARAK ASHOK VIKRAM M 99 Krantisena Maharashtra

5 V.K. ACHARYA M 99 Prabuddha Republican Party

6 T.M. KAMBLE M 99 Republican Party of India (Democratic )

7 GANNE TUKARAM RAMBHAU M 99 Jan Surajya Shakti

8 BANSODE RAGHUNATH WAGHOJI M 99 Peoples Republican Party

9 BABURAO SATYAWAN POTHHARE M 99 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

10 RAMKUMAR RAIWADIKAR M 99 Samajwadi Jan Parishad

11 SHRIKANT RAMRAO JEDHE M 99 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

12 SUSANE ATUL GANGARAM M 99 Ambedkarist Republican Party

13 SAHEBRAO HARIBHAU WAGHMARE M 99 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

14 AAWCHARE VIJAYKUMAR BABRUWAN M 99 Independent

15 KAMBLE BANSILAL RAMCHANDRA M 99 Independent

16 NILANGAEKAR AVINASH MADHUKARRAO M 99 Independent

17 MANE GAJANAN PANDURANG M 99 Independent

18 SANJAY KABIRDAS GAIKWAD M 99 Independent

S13 42 MH SOLAPUR 23-Apr-09 1 GAIKWAD PRAMOD RAMCHANDRA M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 ADV. BANSODE SHARAD MARUTI M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 SHINDE SUSHILKUMAR SAMBHAJIRAO M 67 Indian National Congress

4 ADV. KASABEKAR SHRIDHAR LIMBAJI M 59 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

5 RAJGURU NARAYAN YEDU M 60 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6 LAXMIKANT CHANDRAKANT GAIKWAD M 37 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

7 NARAYANKAR RAJENDRA BABURAO M 44 Independent

8 NITINKUMAR RAMCHANDRA KAMBLE ALIAS NITIN BANPURKAR M 37 Independent

9 BANSODE UTTAM BHIMSHA M 50 Independent

10 BANSODE RAHUL DATTU M 33 Independent

11 MILIND MAREPPA MULE M 49 Independent

12 VIKRAM UTTAM KASABE M 33 Independent

13 VIJAYKUMAR BHAGWANRAO UGHADE M 38 Independent

S13 43 MH MADHA 23-Apr-09 1 DESHMUKH SUBHASH SURESHCHANDRA M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 PAWAR SHARADCHANDRA GOVINDRAO M 68 Nationalist Congress Party

3 RAHUL VITTHAL SARWADE M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 AYU GAIKWAD SATISH SUGRAV M 28 Prabuddha Republican Party

5 CHAVAN SUBHASH VITTHAL M 34 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

6 MAHADEO JAGANNATH JANKAR M 40 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

7 RAMCHANDRA NARAYAN KACCHAVE M 40 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

8 SASTE KAKASAHEB MAHADEO M 48 Krantisena Maharashtra

9 SOU. NAGMANI KISAN JAKKAN F 45 Independent

10 DR.M. D. PATIL M 50 Independent

11 BANSODE BALVEER DAGADU M 42 Independent

12 BHANUDAS BHAGAWAN DEVAKATE M 70 Independent

13 DR. MAHADEO ABAJI POL M 56 Independent

14 SURESH SHAMRAO GHADGE M 36 Independent

15 DNYANESHWAR VITTHAL AMALE M 26 Independent

S13 44 MH SANGLI 23-Apr-09 1 PATEL M.JAVED M. YUSUF M 38 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 PRATIK PRAKASHBAPU PATIL M 35 Indian National Congress

3 ASHOK DNYANU MANE(BHAU) M 37 Swatantra Bharat Paksha

4 MANOHAR BALKRISHNA KHEDKAR M 58 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5 MAHADEV ANNA WAGHAMARE M 65 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

6 AJITRAO SHANKARRAO GHORPADE M 56 Independent

7 ANSARI SHABBIR AHEMED M 61 Independent

8 GANPATI TUKARAM KAMBLE ALIAS G.T. KAMBLE M 70 Independent

9 PANDHARE DATTATRAYA PANDURANG M 51 Independent

10 KAVTHEKAR PRAVIN BHAGWAN KAVTHEKAR ALIAS JIVA MAHALE M 47 Independent

11 MULANI BALEKHAN USMAN M 46 Independent

12 VAGARE MARUTI MURA M 34 Independent

13 SHAMRAO PIRAJI KADAM M 64 Independent

14 SIDDESHWAR SHIVAPPA BHOSALE M 36 Independent

S13 45 MH SATARA 23-Apr-09 1 CHAVAN PRASHANT VASANT M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 PURUSHOTTAM BAJIRAO JADHAV M 45 Shivsena

3 BHONSLE SHRIMANT CHH. UDYANRAJE PRATAPSINH M 43 Nationalist Congress Party

4 BHAUSAHEB GANGARAM WAGH M 51 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

5 ALNKRITA ABHIJIT AWADE-BICHUKALE F 29 Independent

S13 46 MH RATNAGIRI – SINDHUDURG 23-Apr-09 1 DR.NILESH NARAYAN RANE M 28 Indian National Congress

2 PARULEKAR JAYENDRA SHRIPAD M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 SURESH PRABHAKAR PRABHU M 55 Shivsena

4 AJAY ALIAS AABA DADA JADHAV M 28 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

5 RAJESH PUSUSHOTTAM SURVE M 41 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

6 VILASRAO KHANVILKAR M 54 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

7 SIRAJ ABDULLA KAUCHALI M 60 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

8 KHALAPE AKBAR MAHAMMAD M 55 Independent

9 SURENDRA BORKAR M 62 Independent

S13 47 MH KOLHAPUR 23-Apr-09 1 KAMBLE SUHAS NIVRUTI M 41 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 CHHATRPATI SAMBHAJIRAJE SHAHU M 38 Nationalist Congress Party

3 DEVANE VIJAY SHAMRAO M 50 Shivsena

4 KAMBLE MARUTI RAVELU M 34 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

5 CHOUGULE BHAI P.T. M 64 Independent

6 DR. NEELAMBARI RAMESH MANDAPE F 49 Independent

7 S.R. TATYA PATIL M 70 Independent

8 BAJRANG KRISHNA PATIL M 39 Independent

9 MAHAMMADGOUS GULAB NADAF M 57 Independent

10 SADASHIVRAO MANDLIK DADOBA M 74 Independent

S13 48 MH HATKANANGLE 23-Apr-09 1 KANADE ANILKUMAR MAHADEV M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 MANE NIVEDITA SAMBHAJIRAO F 45 Nationalist Congress Party

3 RAGHUNATH RAMCHANDRA PATIL M 58 Shivsena

4 PATIL UDAY PANDHARINATH M 39 Krantisena Maharashtra

5 BABURAO OMANNA KAMBLE M 61 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha

6 MANE ARVIND BHIVA M 43 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha

7 SHETTI RAJU ALIAS DEVAPPA ANNA M 41 Swabhimani Paksha

8 ARUN ALIAS SHAM BAJARNAG BUCHADE M 28 Independent

9 THORAT ANANDRAO TUKARAM M 46 Independent

10 SURNIKE ANANDRAO VASANTRAO (FOUJI BAPU) M 48 Independent

S18 4 OR KEONJHAR 23-Apr-09 1 ANANTA NAYAK M 39 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 DHANURJAYA SIDU M 43 Indian National Congress

3 YASHBANT NARAYAN SINGH LAGURI M 38 Biju Janata Dal

4 LACHHAMAN MAJHI M 42 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

5 DR SUDARSHAN LOHAR M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party

6 CHITTA RANJAN MUNDA M 37 Independent

7 DR. FAKIR MOHAN NAIK M 34 Independent

S18 5 OR MAYURBHANJ 23-Apr-09 1 GAMHA SINGH M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 DROUPADI MURMU F 50 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 LAXMAN TUDU M 47 Biju Janata Dal

4 LAXMAN MAJHI M 62 Indian National Congress

5 SUDAM MARNDI M 43 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

6 LAXMISWAR TAMUDIA M 68 Samajwadi Party

7 SUNDAR MOHAN MAJHI M 65 Jharkhand Disom Party

8 DEVI PRASANNA BESRA M 61 Independent

9 NARENDRA HANSDA M 26 Independent

10 RAMESWAR MAJHI M 29 Independent

S18 6 OR BALASORE 23-Apr-09 1 ARUN JENA M 47 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

2 ARUN DEY M 63 Nationalist Congress Party

3 MAHAMEGHA BAHAN AIRA KHARABELA SWAIN M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 SHRADHANJALI PRADHAN F 40 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 SRIKANTA KUMAR JENA M 58 Indian National Congress

6 DEBASISH RANJAN DASH M 37 Samruddha Odisha

7 RAKESH RANJAN PATRA M 27 Jana Hitkari Party

8 GHASIRAM MOHANTA M 66 Independent

9 LAXIMIKANTA BEHERA M 51 Independent

S18 7 OR BHADRAK 23-Apr-09 1 ANANTA PRASAD SETHI M 58 Indian National Congress

2 ARJUN CHARAN SETHI M 68 Biju Janata Dal

3 NITYANANDA JENA M 29 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 RATH DAS M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 GOLAK PRASAD MALLIK M 60 Independent

6 SUSANTA KUMAR JENA M 31 Independent

S18 8 OR JAJPUR 23-Apr-09 1 AMIYA KANTA MALLIK M 50 Indian National Congress

2 PARAMESWAR SETHI M 40 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 MOHAN JENA M 52 Biju Janata Dal

4 AJIT KUMAR JENA M 42 Samruddha Odisha

5 BABULI MALLIK M 36 Orissa Mukti Morcha

6 BHIMSEN BEHERA M 44 Jana Hitkari Party

7 UDAYA NATH JENA M 29 Independent

8 KALANDI MALLIK M 28 Independent

S18 9 OR DHENKANAL 23-Apr-09 1 KRISHNA CHANDRA SAHOO M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 CHANDRA SEKHAR TRIPATHY M 60 Indian National Congress

3 TATHAGATA SATPATHY M 53 Biju Janata Dal

4 RUDRANARAYAN PANY M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 PRIYABRATA GARNAIK M 28 Kalinga Sena

S18 14 OR CUTTACK 23-Apr-09 1 ANADI SAHU M 68 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 GOPAL CHANDRA KAR M 63 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 BIBHUTI BHUSAN MISHRA M 57 Indian National Congress

4 BHARTRUHARI MAHTAB M 51 Biju Janata Dal

5 KAPILA CHARAN MALL M 72 Bira Oriya Party

6 PRADIP ROUTRAY M 40 Kalinga Sena

7 DEBANANDA SINGH M 33 Independent

S18 15 OR KENDRAPARA 23-Apr-09 1 JNANDEV BEURA M 44 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 RANJIB BISWAL M 38 Indian National Congress

3 LENIN LENKA M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 BAIJAYANT PANDA M 45 Biju Janata Dal

5 PRATAP CHANDRA JENA M 60 Samruddha Odisha

6 PRAVAKAR NAYAK M 48 Kalinga Sena

7 RAMA KRUSHNA DASH M 44 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

8 SARAT CHANDRA SWAIN M 49 Independent

S18 16 OR JAGATSINGHPUR 23-Apr-09 1 BAIDHAR MALLICK M 46 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 BIBHU PRASAD TARAI M 42 Communist Party of India

3 BIBHUTI BHUSAN MAJHI M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 RABINDRA KUMAR SETHY M 54 Indian National Congress

5 AKSHAYA KUMAR SETHI M 25 Samruddha Odisha

S18 17 OR PURI 23-Apr-09 1 JITENDRA KUMAR SAHOO M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 DEBENDRA NATH MANSINGH M 59 Indian National Congress

3 PINAKI MISRA M 49 Biju Janata Dal

4 BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY M 62 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 KSHITISH BISWAL M 80 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

6 SABYASACHI MOHAPATRA M 35 Kalinga Sena

7 PRABHAT KUMAR BADAPANDA M 42 Independent

S18 18 OR BHUBANESWAR 23-Apr-09 1 AKSHAYA KUMAR MOHANTY M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 ARCHANA NAYAK F 43 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 PRASANNA KUMAR PATASANI M 66 Biju Janata Dal

4 SANTOSH MOHANTY M 58 Indian National Congress

5 UMA CHARANA MISHRA M 60 Jana Hitkari Party

6 NABAGHAN PARIDA M 66 Bira Oriya Party

7 PRAFUL KUMAR SAHOO M 38 Republican Party of India (A)

8 BASANTA KUMAR BEHERA M 47 Kalinga Sena

9 BIJAYANANDA MISHRA M 51 Lok Jan Shakti Party

10 JAGANNATH PRASAD LENKA M 75 Independent

11 DHIRENDRA SATAPATHY M 67 Independent

12 PRAMILA BEHERA F 33 Independent

13 SASTHI PRASAD SETHI M 47 Independent

S23 1 TR TRIPURA WEST 23-Apr-09 1 NILMANI DEB M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 KHAGEN DAS M 71 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3 SUDIP ROY BARMAN M 45 Indian National Congress

4 SANJIB DEY M 32 Nationalist Congress Party

5 ARUN CHANDRA BHOWMIK M 63 All India Trinamool Congress

6 RAKHAL RAJ DATTA M 60 Amra Bangalee

7 PARTHA KARMAKAR M 40 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

8 TITU SAHA M 32 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

9 BINOY DEB BARMA M 49 Independent

10 SUBRATA BHOWMIK M 58 Independent

S23 2 TR TRIPURA EAST 23-Apr-09 1 PULIN BEHARI DEWAN M 69 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 BAJU BAN RIYAN M 67 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3 DIBA CHANDRA HRANGKHWAL M 52 Indian National Congress

4 RITA RANI DEBBARMA F 51 All India Trinamool Congress

5 KARNA DHAN CHAKMA M 37 Amra Bangalee

6 FALGUNI TRIPURA M 42 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

7 RAJESH DEB BARMA M 34 Independent

8 BINOY REANG M 34 Independent

9 MEVAR KUMAR JAMATIA M 40 Independent

S24 37 UP AMETHI 23-Apr-09 1 ASHEESH SHUKLA M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH M 39 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 RAHUL GANDHI M 38 Indian National Congress

4 BHUWAL M 56 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

5 MOHD.HASAN LAHARI M 35 Bharatiya Republican Paksha

6 SUNITA F 26 Mahila Adhikar Party

7 SURYABHAN MAURYA M 45 Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

8 AAVID HUSSAIN M 31 Independent

9 OMKAR M 46 Independent

10 KAPIL DEO M 30 Independent

11 DILIP M 36 Independent

12 MIHILAL M 52 Independent

13 MEET SINGH M 65 Independent

14 RAMESH CHANDRA M 30 Independent

15 RAM SHANKER M 43 Independent

16 SWAMI NATH M 25 Independent

S24 38 UP SULTANPUR 23-Apr-09 1 ASHOK PANDEY M 58 Samajwadi Party

2 MOHD.TAHIR M 33 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 SURYA BHAN SINGH M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 DR.SANJAY SINGH M 55 Indian National Congress

5 ANIL M 35 Republican Party of India (A)

6 CHOTELAL MAURYA M 40 Apna Dal

7 MOHD.UMAR M 42 Peace Party

8 RAKESH M 25 National Youth Party

9 RAJKUMAR PANDEY M 36 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

10 TRIVENI PRASAD BHEEM M 52 Bharatiya Republican Paksha

11 ARVIND KUMAR M 46 Independent

12 AWADHESH KUMAR M 30 Independent

13 KRISHNA NARAYAN M 33 Independent

14 JHINKURAM VISHWAKARMA M 33 Independent

15 PRAKASH CHANDRA M 35 Independent

16 HARI NARAYAN M 70 Independent

S24 39 UP PRATAPGARH 23-Apr-09 1 KUNWAR AKSHAYA PRATAP SINGH ‘GOPAL JI’ M 41 Samajwadi Party

2 RAJKUMARI RATNA SINGH F 49 Indian National Congress

3 LAKSHMI NARAIN PANDEY ‘GURU JI’ M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 PROF. SHIVAKANT OJHA M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 ATIQ AHAMAD M 46 Apna Dal

6 ARUN KUMAR M 48 Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

7 A. RASHID ANSARI M 54 Momin Conference

8 RAJESH M 36 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

9 ATUL DWIVEDI M 29 Independent

10 UDHAV RAM M 53 Independent

11 CHHANGALAL M 56 Independent

12 JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH M 40 Independent

13 DINESH PANDEY ALIAS D.K. PANDEY M 34 Independent

14 BADRI PRASAD M 48 Independent

15 MUNEESHWAR SINGH M 65 Independent

16 RAMESH KUMAR M 31 Independent

17 RAVINDRA SINGH M 33 Independent

18 RANI PAL F 58 Independent

19 RAMMURTI MISHRA M 36 Independent

20 RAM SAMUJH M 60 Independent

21 VINOD M 29 Independent

22 SHIVRAM M 51 Independent

23 SATRAM M 42 Independent

S24 48 UP BANDA 23-Apr-09 1 AMITA BAJPAI F 39 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 BHAGAWAN DEEN GARG M 47 Indian National Congress

3 BHAIRON PRASAD MISHRA M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 SANTOSH KUMAR M 54 Communist Party of India

5 R. K. SINGH PATEL M 49 Samajwadi Party

6 ASHOK KUMAR M 40 Indian Justice Party

7 ANAND YADAV M 45 United Communist Party of India

8 PARASHU RAM NISHAD M 45 Apna Dal

9 LALIT KUMAR M 37 Ambedkar Samaj Party

10 ANSH DHARI M 29 Independent

11 JAGAN NATH SINGH M 62 Independent

12 PRAKASH NARAYAN M 32 Independent

13 BALENDRA NATH M 38 Independent

14 MANOJ KUMAR M 30 Independent

15 SHIV KUMAR M 43 Independent

S24 50 UP KAUSHAMBI 23-Apr-09 1 GIRISH CHANDRA PASI M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 GAUTAM CHAUDHARY M 44 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 RAM NIHOR RAKESH M 64 Indian National Congress

4 SHAILENDRA KUMAR M 51 Samajwadi Party

5 UMESH CHANDRA PASI M 40 Apna Dal

6 GULAB SONKAR M 45 Indian Justice Party

7 GULAB CHANDRA M 39 Independent

8 JAGDEO M 53 Independent

9 MAN SINGH M 28 Independent

10 RAM SARAN M 56 Independent

S24 51 UP PHULPUR 23-Apr-09 1 KAPIL MUNI KARWARIYA M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 KARAN SINGH PATEL M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 DHARMARAJ SINGH PATEL M 50 Indian National Congress

4 SHYAMA CHARAN GUPTA M 63 Samajwadi Party

5 CHANDRAJEET M 28 Lok Dal

6 DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH M 38 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

7 PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA M 49 Apna Dal

8 LALLAN SINGH M 35 Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

9 VIJAY KUMAR M 56 Gondwana Mukti Sena

10 SATISH YADAV M 34 Indian Justice Party

11 SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA M 30 Yuva Vikas Party

12 KRISHNA KUMAR M 33 Independent

13 DR. NEERAJ M 43 Independent

14 BHARAT LAL M 52 Independent

15 DR. MILAN MUKHERJEE M 67 Independent

16 MUNISHWAR SINGH MAURYA M 65 Independent

17 RADHIKA PAL F 34 Independent

18 RADHESHYAM SINGH YADAV M 72 Independent

19 RAM JANM YADAV M 31 Independent

20 RAMSHANKAR M 47 Independent

21 VIRENDRA PAL SINGH M 66 Independent

22 SHAILENDRA KUMAR PRAJAPATI M 40 Independent

23 SAMAR BAHADUR SHARMA M 40 Independent

24 DR. SONE LAL PATEL M 59 Independent

S24 52 UP ALLAHABAD 23-Apr-09 1 ASHOK KUMAR BAJPAI M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 YOGESH SHUKLA M 39 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 KUNWAR REWATI RAMAN SINGH ALIAS MANI JI M 65 Samajwadi Party

4 SHYAM KRISHNA PANDEY M 65 Indian National Congress

5 OM PRAKASH M 41 Rashtriya Machhua Samaj Party

6 GULAB GRAMEEN M 47 Lok Dal

7 BIHARI LAL SHARMA M 54 Apna Dal

8 BAIJAL KUMAR M 48 Bahujan Sangharsh Party (Kanshiram)

9 RAMA KANT M 47 Indian Justice Party

10 RAJESH PASI M 32 Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

11 RAM PARIKHAN SINGH M 59 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

12 VIJAY SHANKAR M 45 Bahujan Shakty

13 SARFUDDIN M 32 Nelopa(United)

14 AKBAL MOHAMMD M 34 Independent

15 AJUG NARAIN M 33 Independent

16 ABHAY SRIVASTAVA M 31 Independent

17 KM. KUSUM KUMARI AD F 45 Independent

18 GOPAL SWROOP JOSHI M 62 Independent

19 NARENDRA KUMAR TEWARI M 47 Independent

20 BAJRANG DUTT M 36 Independent

21 MUNNU PRASAD M 44 Independent

22 RAVI PRAKASH M 41 Independent

23 RAKESH KUMAR M 47 Independent

24 RAJ BALI M 51 Independent

25 RAM GOVIND M 46 Independent

26 RAM JEET M 38 Independent

27 RAM LAL M 46 Independent

28 KM. SHASHI PANDEY F 45 Independent

29 DR. MOHD. SALMAN RASHIDI M 57 Independent

30 SADHNA AGARWAL F 47 Independent

31 HIRA LAL M 54 Independent

S24 54 UP FAIZABAD 23-Apr-09 1 NIRMAL KHATRI M 58 Indian National Congress

2 BIMLENDRA MOHAN PRATAP MISRA “PAPPU BHAIYA” M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 MITRASEN M 76 Samajwadi Party

4 LALLU SINGH M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 AJAY KUMAR M 25 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

6 ATUL KUMAR PANDEY M 39 The Humanist Party of India

7 AMAR NATH JAISWAL M 44 Rashtriya Kranti Party

8 GIRISH CHANDRA VERMA M 32 Apna Dal

9 GULAM SABIR M 42 Navbharat Nirman Party

10 CHANDRASHEKHAR SINGH M 36 Bharat Punarnirman Dal

11 NUSRAT QUDDUSI ALIAS BABLOO M 41 Peace Party

12 MANISH KUMAR PANDEY M 35 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

13 SAIYYAD MUSHEER AHMED M 55 Awami Party

14 RAMESH KUMAR RAWAT M 42 Maulik Adhikar Party

15 SUSHIL KUMAR M 45 Bharatiya Lok Kalyan Dal

16 ATAURR RAHMAN ANSARI M 52 Independent

17 AMARNATH VERMA M 36 Independent

18 DINA NATH PANDEY M 35 Independent

19 NASREEN BANO F 38 Independent

20 BALAK RAM ALIAS SHIV BALAK PASI M 34 Independent

21 RAM DHIRAJ M 46 Independent

22 SWAMI NATH M 29 Independent

23 SIYARAM KORI M 50 Independent

S24 55 UP AMBEDKAR NAGAR 23-Apr-09 1 RAKESH PANDEY M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 VINAY KATIYAR M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 SHANKHLAL MAJHI M 54 Samajwadi Party

4 DINESH KUMAR RAJBHAR M 33 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

5 BASANT LAL M 53 Peace Party

6 BAL MUKUND DHURIYA M 31 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

7 BHARTHARI M 44 Bharatiya Republican Paksha

8 MANSHARAM M 40 Maulik Adhikar Party

9 LALMAN M 34 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

10 VIJAY KUMAR MAURYA M 38 Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

11 SANTOSH KUMAR M 50 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

12 IFTEKHAR AHMAD M 37 Independent

13 KAILASH KUMAR SHUKLA M 60 Independent

14 GAYADEEN M 43 Independent

15 CHANDRA BHUSHAN M 61 Independent

16 DEO PRASAD MISHRA M 42 Independent

17 NABAB ALI M 55 Independent

18 PARASHU RAM M 49 Independent

19 PATANJALI JAITALI M 58 Independent

20 RAM SUKH SAHOO M 50 Independent

21 DR. LAL BAHADUR M 42 Independent

22 SRIRAM AMBESH M 61 Independent

S24 57 UP KAISERGANJ 23-Apr-09 1 MOHD ALEEM M 46 Indian National Congress

2 BRIJBHUSHAN SARAN SINGH M 52 Samajwadi Party

3 DR LALTA PRASAD MISHRA ALIS DR L P MISHRA M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 SURENDRA NATH AWASTHI M 53 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 ZAMEER AHAMAD M 53 Ambedkar National Congress

6 DAYA RAM M 41 Peoples Democratic Forum

7 MANOJ KUMAR M 33 Lok Dal

8 RAM PRAKSH M 39 Republican Party of India (A)

9 RAMENDER DEV PATHAK M 60 Peace Party

10 HAFEEZ M 47 Apna Dal

11 ANOKHI LAL M 49 Independent

12 OM PRAKASH M 35 Independent

13 UDAI RAJ M 52 Independent

14 CHANDRA BHAN M 42 Independent

15 JAGDISH M 40 Independent

16 JAGDISH PRASAD M 38 Independent

17 JITENDRA BAHADUR M 57 Independent

18 PARAMHANS SINGH M 33 Independent

19 RAJ KISHORE SINGH M 38 Independent

20 RADHEYSHYAM BOAT M 62 Independent

21 RAMFEER ALIS CHUNTI M 59 Independent

22 VINESH KUMAR M 32 Independent

23 VIMAL VERMA M 30 Independent

S24 58 UP SHRAWASTI 23-Apr-09 1 RIZVAN ZAHEER M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 RUBAB SAIDA F 58 Samajwadi Party

3 VINAY KUMAR ALIAS VINNU M 45 Indian National Congress

4 SATYA DEO SINGH M 63 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 ARUN KUMAR M 33 Ambedkar National Congress

6 KULDEEP M 44 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

7 RAJESHWAR MISHRA M 28 Peace Party

8 RAM ADHAR M 62 Republican Party of India (A)

9 TEJ BAHADUR M 32 Independent

10 RAM SUDHI M 38 Independent

11 VINOD KUMAR PANDEY M 27 Independent

S24 59 UP GONDA 23-Apr-09 1 DR ACHUTANANDDUBE M 64 Nationalist Congress Party

2 KIRTI VARDHAN SINGH RAJA BAIYA M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 BENI PRASAD VERMA M 68 Indian National Congress

4 RAM PRATAP SINGH M 58 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 VINOD KUMAR SINGH ALIAS PANDIT SINGH M 42 Samajwadi Party

6 ASHIQ ALI M 46 Peace Party

7 OM PRAKASH SINGH M 54 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

8 PREM KUMAR M 26 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

9 RAJENDRA PRASAD1 M 55 Ambedkar National Congress

10 RAM KEWAL M 41 Vanchit Jamat Party

11 RAM LOCHAN M 46 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

12 VIDYA SAGAR M 36 Apna Dal

13 HARSH VARDHAN PANDEY M 33 Lok Dal

14 AKILENDRA KUMAR PATHAK M 34 Independent

15 ANURADHA PATEL F 42 Independent

16 OM PRAKASH M 47 Independent

17 GAGNGA DHAR SHUKLA M 38 Independent

18 DEEPAK M 31 Independent

19 NARENDRA SINGH M 34 Independent

20 BAIJNATH M 30 Independent

21 RAJENDRA PRASAD M 28 Independent

22 RADHEY SHYAM M 59 Independent

23 RAM PRASAD M 61 Independent

24 RAM LAKHAN M 54 Independent

25 SATYA PRAKASH M 39 Independent

S24 60 UP DOMARIYAGANJ 23-Apr-09 1 JAGDAMBIKA PAL M 59 Indian National Congress

2 JAI PRATAP SINGH M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 MATA PRASAD PANDEY M 72 Samajwadi Party

4 MOHD. MUQUEEM M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 INAMULLAH CHAUDHARY M 66 Peace Party

6 JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH M 46 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

7 PINGAL PRASAD M 41 Republican Party of India

8 BALKRISHNA M 39 Bahujan Sangharsh Party (Kanshiram)

9 MUKHDEV M 41 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

10 RAJDEV M 35 Bharatiya Eklavya Party

11 RAM SAMUJH M 41 Bharatiya Jan Berojgar Chhatra Dal

12 RAHUL SANGH PRIYA BHARTI M 36 Indian Justice Party

13 HARISHANKAR M 45 Lok Jan Shakti Party

14 MOTILAL VIDHYARTHI M 59 Independent

15 RAM KRIPAL M 58 Independent

16 SIRAJ AHAMAD M 26 Independent

S24 61 UP BASTI 23-Apr-09 1 ARVIND KUMAR CHAUDHARY M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 BASANT CHAUDHARY M 43 Indian National Congress

3 RAJ KISHOR SINGH M 38 Samajwadi Party

4 DR. Y. D. SINGH M 64 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 OM PRAKASH M 40 Vanchit Jamat Party

6 DAYASHANKAR PATWA M 57 Peace Party

7 DALBAG SINGH M 50 Bahujan Sangharsh Party (Kanshiram)

8 RAM NAYAN PATEL M 49 Apna Dal

9 VINOD KUMAR RAJBHAR M 33 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

10 SHIVDAS M 50 Shoshit Samaj Dal

11 SANJEEV KUMAR NISHAD M 27 Bahujan Uday Manch

12 SITARAM NISHAD M 63 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

13 RAM LALAN YADAV M 36 Independent

14 SHIV POOJAN ARYA M 52 Independent

15 SATYADEV OJHA M 70 Independent

16 SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA M 40 Independent

S24 62 UP SANT KABIR NAGAR 23-Apr-09 1 KAMLA KANT CHAUDHARY M 41 Communist Party of India

2 FAZLEY MAHAMOOD M 41 Indian National Congress

3 BHAL CHANDRA YADAV M 42 Samajwadi Party

4 BHISMA SHANKAR ALIAS KUSHAL TIWARI M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 SHARAD TRIPATHI M 35 Bharatiya Janata Party

6 INDRA KUMAR M 37 Bahujan Uday Manch

7 KRISHNA NAND MISHRA M 38 All India Minorities Front

8 KHELADI M 35 Bharatiya Republican Paksha

9 JANTRI LAL M 37 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

10 PANCHOO BELDAR M 48 Ambedkar Samaj Party

11 RAJESH SINGH M 37 Peace Party

12 RAM ACHAL M 34 Maulik Adhikar Party

13 RAM AVADH NISHAD M 62 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party

14 LOTAN ALIAS LAUTAN PRASAD M 47 Shoshit Samaj Dal

15 VINOD RAI M 38 National Lokhind Party

16 ANJU F 28 Independent

17 JOOGESH YADAV M 35 Independent

18 NITYANAND MANI TRIPATHI M 35 Independent

19 PHOOLDEO M 49 Independent

20 RAMESH M 26 Independent

21 VINAY PANDEY M 31 Independent

22 SHRI BABA RAM CHANDRA M 52 Independent

23 SUSHILA JIGYASU F 29 Independent

24 HARISH CHANDRA M 32 Independent

S24 73 UP JAUNPUR 23-Apr-09 1 DHANANJAY SINGH M 33 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 PARAS NATH YADAVA M 54 Samajwadi Party

3 SEEMA F 37 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 ACHHEYLAL NISHAD M 61 Nelopa(United)

5 GIRAJA SHANKAR YADAVA M 49 Gondvana Gantantra Party

6 GEETA SINGH F 46 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

7 BAHADUR SONKAR M 48 Indian Justice Party

8 RAVI SHANKAR M 38 Lok Jan Shakti Party

9 RAJKISHUN M 26 Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

10 RAJESH S/O RAMESHCHANDRA M 30 Apna Dal

11 RAJESH S/O RAMYAGYA M 32 Eklavya Samaj Party

12 RAMCHANDAR M 52 Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

13 SHEETALA PRASAD M 51 Revolutionary Socialist Party

14 AJAY KASYAP – GUDDU M 26 Independent

15 JAGDISH CHANDRA ASTHANA M 62 Independent

16 TASLEEM AHMED REHMANI M 45 Independent

S24 78 UP BHADOHI 23-Apr-09 1 DR. AKHILESH KUMAR DWIVEDI M 41 Nationalist Congress Party

2 GORAKHNATH M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 CHHOTELAL BIND M 53 Samajwadi Party

4 DR. MAHENDRA NATH PANDEY M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 SURYMANI TIWARI M 60 Indian National Congress

6 JAJ LAL M 47 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

7 NANDLAL M 56 Vikas Party

8 RAMRATEE BIND M 74 Apna Dal

9 THAKUR SANTOSH KUMAR M 27 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

10 SHAHID M 42 Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party

11 GAURISHANKAR M 38 Independent

12 JEETENDRA M 30 Independent

13 TEJ BAHADUR YADAV ADVOCATE M 56 Independent

S27 1 JH RAJMAHAL 23-Apr-09 1 CHANDRA SHEKHAR AZAD M 38 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 JYOTIN SOREN M 59 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3 THOMAS HASDA M 58 Rashtriya Janata Dal

4 DEVIDHAN BESRA M 69 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 HEMLAL MURMU M 54 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

6 AAMELIYA HANSDA F 29 Revolutionary Socialist Party

7 CHARAN MURMU M 33 Shivsena

8 DAUD MARANDI M 25 Samajwadi Party

9 SUKHWA URAON M 33 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

10 SUNDAR TUDU M 45 Bharatiya Jagaran Party

11 SOM MARANDI M 44 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

12 STIPHEN MARANDI M 55 Jharkhand Jan Morcha

S27 2 JH DUMKA 23-Apr-09 1 CHURKA TUDU M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 PASHUPATI KOL M 29 Communist Party of India

3 RAMESH TUDU M 34 Rashtriya Janata Dal

4 SHIBU SOREN M 64 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

5 SUNIL SOREN M 30 Bharatiya Janata Party

6 ARJUN PUJHAR M 33 Samajwadi Party

7 NIRMALA MURMU F 33 Revolutionary Socialist Party

8 PHATIK CHANDRA HEMBRAM M 64 All Jharkhand Students Union

9 BITIYA MANJHI F 53 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

10 RAMESH HEMBROM M 39 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

11 RAMJIVAN DEHRI M 35 Samata Party

12 KALESHWAR SOREN M 38 Independent

13 CHARLES MURMU M 27 Independent

14 NANDLAL SOREN M 55 Independent

15 PULICE HEMRAM M 31 Independent

16 BIVISAN PUJHAR M 50 Independent

17 CYRIL HANSDA M 63 Independent

18 SONA MURMU F 56 Independent

19 HOPNA BASKI M 57 Independent

S27 3 JH GODDA 23-Apr-09 1 IQBAL DURRANI M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 DURGA SOREN M 39 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

3 NISHIKANT DUBEY M 37 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 FURKAN ANSARI M 61 Indian National Congress

5 ASHOK SHARMA M 39 Jharkhand Party

6 GEETA MANDAL F 39 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7 GOVIND LAL MARANDI M 39 Revolutionary Socialist Party

8 JAWAHAR LAL YADAV M 31 Lok Jan Shakti Party

9 NANDLAL YADAV M 39 Samajwadi Party

10 NIRANJAN PRASAD YADAV M 33 Rashtrawadi Sena

11 PRADEEP YADAV M 42 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

12 PRADEEP YADAV M 25 Samata Party

13 BINOD MEHARIA M 56 Bahujan Shakty

14 RAJ NARAYAN KHAWADE M 42 AJSU Party

15 SANTOSH KUMAR RAY M 26 All India Trinamool Congress

16 SURAJ MANDAL M 61 Jharkhand Vikas Dal

17 JAYSWAL MANJHI M 38 Independent

18 JAHIR MUSTAKIM M 35 Independent

19 MANOJ KUMAR MANDAL M 35 Independent

20 MITHILESH PASWAN M 38 Independent

21 MD. MOAJJAM ALI CHANCHAL M 38 Independent

22 SHANKAR PRASAD KESHARI M 39 Independent

23 SANJEEV KUMAR M 27 Independent

S27 6 JH GIRIDIH 23-Apr-09 1 AKLU RAM MAHTO M 65 Communist Party of India

2 TEKLAL MAHTO M 57 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

3 BIJAY SINGH M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 MD. HIMAYUN ANSARI M 72 Rashtriya Janata Dal

6 MRINAL KANTI DEV M 61 Socialist Party (Lohia)

7 RAVINDER MAHTO M 43 Jharkhand Party (Naren)

8 SHIVA MAHTO M 75 Marxist Co-Ordination

9 SABA AHMAD M 62 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

10 INDRA DEV MAHTO M 45 Independent

11 UMESH RISHI M 43 Independent

12 NAND KISHOR PRASAD M 64 Independent

13 BUDDHI NATH TIWARY M 41 Independent

14 MAHAVIR PRASAD M 36 Independent

15 MASOOM RAJA ANSARI M 27 Independent

16 LALOO KEWAT M 46 Independent

17 SHANKAR RAJAK M 38 Independent

S27 7 JH DHANBAD 23-Apr-09 1 CHANDRASHEKHAR DUBEY M 66 Indian National Congress

2 PASHUPATI NATH SINGH M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 SAMARESH SINGH M 68 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 INDU SINGH F 32 Samata Party

5 JANARDAN PANDEY M 56 All India Forward Bloc

6 DIN BANDHU SINGH M 56 Socialist Party (Lohia)

7 PAWAN KUMAR JHA M 28 Janata Dal (Secular)

8 PHUL CHAND MANDAL M 66 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

9 M.K.MANDAL M 62 Amra Bangalee

10 A.K. ROY M 72 Marxist Co-Ordination

11 VIDESHI MAHATO M 54 Jharkhand Vikas Dal

12 VIRENDRA PRADHAN M 44 Lok Jan Shakti Party

13 SUNIL KUMAR M 38 Indian Justice Party

14 MD. SULTAN M 57 Jharkhand Party

15 HAFFIZUDDIN ANSARI M 51 Samajwadi Party

16 ABDUL MUSTAFA M 32 Independent

17 KARTIK MAHATO M 44 Independent

18 JAI PRAKASH SINGH M 39 Independent

19 JAIRAM SINGH M 31 Independent

20 JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH M 36 Independent

21 PHUL CHAND MAHATO M 40 Independent

22 BAMA PADA BAURI M 35 Independent

23 MADHUSUDAN RAJHANS M 44 Independent

24 MANILAL MAHATO M 27 Independent

25 MANOJ GANDHI M 29 Independent

26 MANOJ PANDEY M 29 Independent

27 MUNSI HEMBRAM M 56 Independent

28 RAVI RANJAN SINHA M 34 Independent

29 SHANKAR RAWANI M 42 Independent

30 SALIM KHAN M 42 Independent

31 SADHUSHARAN GOPE M 46 Independent

32 SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH M 57 Independent

S27 8 JH RANCHI 23-Apr-09 1 RAJENDRA SINGH MUNDA M 74 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 RAM TAHAL CHAUDHARY M 66 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 MD. SARFUDDIN M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 SUBODH KANT SAHAY M 57 Indian National Congress

5 AKHTAR ANSARI M 53 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

6 AFSAR EMAM M 48 Jharkhand PeopleÂ’S Party

7 MD. AJAD ANSARI M 47 National Lokhind Party

8 JIPALAL SINGH MUNDA M 45 Jharkhand Party (Naren)

9 DAYANAND GUPTA M 39 Jharkhand Vikas Dal

10 SURENDRA KUMAR SUMAN M 36 Samata Party

11 ANJANI PANDEY M 51 Independent

12 AGAM LAL MAHTO M 34 Independent

13 AFTAB ALAM M 42 Independent

14 ARTI BEHRA F 32 Independent

15 UPENDRA PD. SRIVASTAVA M 65 Independent

16 KESHAV NARAYAN BHAGAT M 49 Independent

17 KAILASH PAHAN M 40 Independent

18 JANARDAN TIWARI M 42 Independent

19 JITENDRA MAHTO M 27 Independent

20 DEVENDRA THAKUR M 48 Independent

21 BIRSA HEMBRAM M 31 Independent

22 RANJEET MAHTO M 49 Independent

23 RAMPODO MAHTO M 37 Independent

24 ROSHAN LAL MAHTO M 28 Independent

25 ROSAN PRASAD M 25 Independent

26 LAL BABA MASANI M 65 Independent

S27 9 JH JAMSHEDPUR 23-Apr-09 1 AJEET KUMAR M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 ARJUN MUNDA M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 SUMAN MAHTO F 44 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

4 ARVIND KUMAR SINGH M 47 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

5 ASHOK TRIPATHI M 44 Samajwadi Party

6 KINKAR GOUR M 41 Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal

7 KRISHN MURARI MISHRA M 47 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

8 PARIKSHIT MAHATO M 43 Lok Jan Shakti Party

9 MUBIN KHAN M 50 Bahujan Shakty

10 RAJ KAPOOR MAHATO M 35 Jharkhand Vikas Dal

11 SHARAT MAHATO M 36 Jharkhand Party (Naren)

12 SHAILENDRA MAHTO M 55 All Jharkhand Students Union

13 SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH M 50 All India Trinamool Congress

14 SANDIP PAUL M 43 Jharkhand Party

15 DR. SUNARAM HANSDA M 41 Jharkhand Disom Party

16 HEMANT SINGH M 37 Amra Bangalee

17 KRISHNA PRASAD M 40 Independent

18 JOSAI MARDI M 31 Independent

19 DILIP KALINDI M 44 Independent

20 DILIP TUDU M 41 Independent

21 PARAS NATH PRASAD M 56 Independent

22 RAKESH KUMAR M 30 Independent

23 RAJIV CHANDRA MAHATO M 27 Independent

24 RAM CHANDRA PRASAD GUPTA M 49 Independent

25 VICTOR A. LAZARUS M 60 Independent

26 SITARAM TUDU M 61 Independent

S27 10 JH SINGHBHUM 23-Apr-09 1 BARKUWAR GAGRAI M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 BAGUN SUMBRUI M 82 Indian National Congress

3 HIKIM CHANDRA TUDU M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 PREM SINGH MUNDRI M 40 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

5 MANGAL SINGH BOBONGA M 42 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

6 SUKH RAM JONKO M 62 Jharkhand Disom Party

7 ASHOK KUMAR TIU M 47 Independent

8 MADHU KORA M 38 Independent

9 HIKIM SOREN M 46 Independent

S04 11 BR KATIHAR 30-Apr-09 1 NIKHIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY M 63 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 MUNNI DEVI F 35 Independent

3 SHAH TARIQ ANWAR M 58 Nationalist Congress Party

4 MADAN MOHAN NISHAD M 62 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 MANOJ PARASAR M 44 Jan Samanta Party

6 PHOOLO DEVI F 40 Independent

7 AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM M 53 Lok Jan Shakti Party

8 SUNIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY M 39 Independent

9 MOHAMMAD HAMID MUBARAK M 33 Independent

10 SHOBHA DEVI F 40 Independent

11 MAHBOOB ALAM M 52 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

12 HIMRAJ SINGH M 49 Independent

13 RAJESH GURNANI M 38 Loktantrik Samata Dal

14 RAJGIRI SINGH M 53 Independent

15 OM PRAKASH PODDAR M 38 Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal

16 MANENDRA KUMAR M 38 Independent

17 BHOLA NATH KEWAT M 60 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

18 CHANDU MURMU M 43 Jharkhand Disom Party

19 SHIV PUJAN PASWAN M 31 Buddhiviveki Vikas Party

20 SHAMBHU ROY M 38 Independent

21 NITESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY M 31 Independent

22 BABU LAL MARANDI M 33 Independent

23 KISHAN LAL AGRAWAL M 32 Independent

S04 13 BR MADHEPURA 30-Apr-09 1 VINOD KUMAR JHA M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 OM PRAKASH NARAYAN M 44 Communist Party of India

3 TARA NAND SADA M 52 Indian National Congress

4 PROF RAVINDRA CHARAN YADAV M 49 Rashtriya Janata Dal

5 SHARAD YADAV M 61 Janata Dal (United)

6 RAJO SAH M 30 Loktantrik Samata Dal

7 DHANOJ KUMAR M 26 Rashtravadi Janata Party

8 RAVINDRA KUMAR M 33 Rashtra Sewa Dal

9 NIRMAL KUMAR SINGH M 66 Samata Party

10 SAKAR SURESH YADAV M 32 Independent

11 KISHOR KUMAR M 33 Independent

12 BALWANT GADHWAL M 29 Independent

13 TIRO SHARMA M 59 Independent

14 KARPOORI RISHIDEO M 29 Independent

15 AMIT ACHARYA M 26 Independent

16 PRASANNA KUMAR M 54 Independent

17 DHRUWA KUMAR M 43 Independent

18 MAHADEV YADAV M 55 Independent

19 PARMESHWARI PRASAD NIRALA M 68 Independent

S04 25 BR KHAGARIA 30-Apr-09 1 SATYA NARAYAN SINGH M 66 Communist Party of India

2 PRADUMAN KUMAR M 31 Independent

3 DINESHCHANDRA YADAV M 50 Janata Dal (United)

4 HARI NANDAN SINGH M 61 Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

5 GULABRAJ M 31 Independent

6 ASARFI PRASAD MEHTA M 63 Bahujan Samaj Party

7 SIKANDAR PRASAD SHARMA M 56 Independent

8 SANGRAM KUMAR M 27 Independent

9 SURESH PODDAR M 47 Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal

10 SANJAY YADAV M 41 Independent

11 NEHA CHAUHAN F 27 Independent

12 MANJU KUMARI F 31 Rashtra Sewa Dal

13 CHAUDHRY MEHBOOB ALI KAISER M 42 Indian National Congress

14 BHARAT KUMAR YADAV M 52 Kosi Vikas Party

15 RAM NANDAN YADAV M 45 Independent

16 NAYEEMUDDIN4 M 42 Independent

17 LAL BAHADUR HIMALAYA M 38 Independent

18 BABULU PASWAN M 35 Navbharat Nirman Party

19 PAWAN KUMAR “SUMAN” M 33 Independent

20 RAVINDRA KU. RANA M 62 Rashtriya Janata Dal

S04 27 BR BANKA 30-Apr-09 1 GRIDHARI YADAV M 44 Indian National Congress

2 JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN YADAV M 55 Rashtriya Janata Dal

3 DAMODAR RAWAT M 47 Janata Dal (United)

4 MUKESH KUMAR SINGH M 45 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 SANJAY KUMAR M 45 Communist Party of India

6 ANIL KUMAR ALIAS ANIL GUPTA M 40 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)

7 AMRESHWAR KUMAR M 29 Jago Party

8 ARBIND KUMAR SAH M 42 Rashtriya Pragati Party

9 KEDAR PRASAD SINGH M 61 Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

10 MAHABUB ALAM ANSARI M 50 Bharatiya Momin Front

11 RAJENDRA PANDIT NETAJI M 57 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (Ulgulan)

S06 1 GJ KACHCHH 30-Apr-09 1 JAT POONAMBEN VELJIBHAI F 37 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 DANICHA VALJIBHAI PUNAMCHANDRA M 54 Indian National Congress

3 NAMORI MOHANBHAI LADHABHAI M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 CHAUHAN MOTILAL DEVJIBHA M 49 Lokpriya Samaj Party

5 DR. TINA MAGANBHAI PARMAR F 26 Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal

6 DUNGARIYA BHARMALBHAI NARANBHAI M 45 Samajwadi Party

7 PARMAR MUKESHBHAI MANDANBHAI M 44 Indian Justice Party

8 BADIYA RAMESH GANGJI M 44 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

9 KANJI ABHABHAI MAHESHWARI M 55 Independent

10 GARVA ASMAL THAKARSHI M 44 Independent

11 GOVIND JIVABHAI DAFADA M 50 Independent

12 BADIA GANGJI FAKIRA M 55 Independent

13 MAHESHWARI GANGJI DAYABHAI M 55 Independent

14 MAHESHWARI DHANJIBHAI KARSHANBHAI M 51 Independent

15 MUNSHI BHURALAL KHIMJIBHAI M 40 Independent

16 MANGALIYA LILBAI JIVANBHAI F 42 Independent

17 VANZARA HIRABEN DALPATBHAI F 35 Independent

18 SARESA NANJI BHANJIBHAI M 42 Independent

S06 2 GJ BANASKANTHA 30-Apr-09 1 GADHVI MUKESHKUMAR BHERAVDANJI M 47 Indian National Congress

2 CHETANBHAI KALABHAI SOLANKI M 28 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 CHAUDHARI HARIBHAI PARTHIBHAI M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 AMRUTBHAI LAKHUBHAI PATEL(FOSI) M 49 Mahagujarat Janta Party

5 KATARIYA HASMUKHBHAI RAVJIBHAI M 34 Akhand Bharti

6 NAGORI JHUBERKHAN LIYAKATKHAN M 33 Adarsh Lok Dal

7 LODHA ISHVARBHAI MAHADEVBHAI M 57 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

8 SAVJIBHAI PATHUBHAI RAJGOR M 34 Vishva Hindustani Sangathan

9 KARNAVAT YOGESHKUMAR BHIKHABHAI M 31 Independent

10 PATEL NAGJIBHAI PRAGJIBHAI M 43 Independent

11 PARSANI MAHMAD SIKANDAR JALALBHAI M 30 Independent

12 PUROHIT ASHOKBHAI CHHAGANBHAI M 32 Independent

13 PANSAL KALABHAI PUNMABHAI M 49 Independent

14 MAJIRANA BHOPAJI AASHAJI M 68 Independent

15 MALI JAGDISHKUMAR HASTAJI M 30 Independent

16 ROOTHAR LEBUJI PARBATJI M 32 Independent

17 SHARDABEN BHIKHABHAI PARMAR F 45 Independent

18 SIPAI AAIYUBBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI M 35 Independent

19 SHRIMALI ASHOKBHAI BALCHANDBHAI M 40 Independent

S06 3 GJ PATAN 30-Apr-09 1 KHOKHAR MAHEBOOBKHAN RAHEMATKHAN M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 JAGDISH THAKOR M 51 Indian National Congress

3 BAROT SANJAYBHAI MAGANBHAI M 50 Nationalist Congress Party

4 RATHOD BHAVSINHBHAI DAHYABHAI M 68 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 PATAVAT MAHAMMADBHAI SHARIFBHAI M 50 Independent

6 PATEL NARANBHAI PRAGDASBHAI M 55 Mahagujarat Janta Party

7 KANUBHAI BHURABHAI MAHESHVARI M 60 Independent

8 CHAUDHARY KIRTIKUMAR JESANGBHAI M 30 Independent

9 CHAUDHARY MANSINHBHAI MANABHAI M 32 Independent

10 JUDAL GANESHBHAI MEGHRAJBHAI M 35 Independent

11 THAKOR NATUJI HALAJI M 48 Independent

12 THAKOR BHUPATSINH KANTIJI M 29 Independent

13 DIVAN YASIN AHMAD MAHAMADSHAH M 47 Independent

14 PATEL KALPESHBHAI SHANKARLAL M 27 Independent

15 PATEL KIRITKUMAR CHIMANLAL M 38 Independent

16 PATEL DILIPKUMAR LILACHAND M 31 Independent

17 PATEL MANORBHAI VIRAMDAS M 68 Independent

18 PATEL RAMESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI M 45 Independent

19 BRAHMKSHATRIYA NIRUPABEN NATVARLAL F 35 Independent

20 BRAHMKSHATRIYA BHAGVATIBEN KHETSINH F 55 Independent

21 RABARI BABUBHAI LALLUBHAI M 56 Independent

22 RAJPUT JAGATSINH SAMANTSANG M 29 Independent

23 RAVAL BHURABHAI MOTIBHAI M 45 Independent

24 VAGHELA SHIVUBHA RAMSING M 53 Independent

25 SUNSARA AAMINBHAI USMANBHAI M 35 Independent

S06 9 GJ SURENDRANAGAR 30-Apr-09 1 BHATIYA NARANBHAI KEHARBHAI M 45 Independent

2 VAGHELA SATUBHA KANUBHA M 75 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

3 BHARATBHAI RAMNIKLAL MAKWANA M 43 Independent

4 KOLI PATEL SOMABHAI M 68 Indian National Congress

5 DEVJIBHAI GOVINDBHAI FATEPARA M 51 Indian National Congress

6 MER LALJIBHAI CHATURBHAI M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party

7 SONI PRAKASHBHAI GOVINDBHAI M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party

8 KORDIA ALTAFBHAI VALIBHAI M 25 Independent

9 PATEL MOHANBHAI DAHYABHAI M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

10 TUNDIYA PREMJIBHAI VIRJIBHAI M 53 Independent

11 NAYAKPRA HITSH BHAGVANGIBHAI M 40 Independent

12 DABHI MOHANBHAI TULSHIBHAI M 63 Independent

13 DERVALIA MEDHABHAI KALABHAI M 51 Independent

14 PATEL KHEMABHAI ISHVARBHAI M 43 Independent

15 RABA HARSURBHAI RAMBHAI M 63 Independent

16 JADAV BHAGWANBHAI MATHURBHAI M 56 Independent

17 UKABHAI AMARABHAI MAKWANA M 40 Independent

18 JAGRUTIBEN BABULAL GADA (SHAH) F 39 Mahagujarat Janta Party

19 PATADIYA KHIMJIBHAI HARAJIVANBHAI M 52 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena

20 SOLANKI KARSHANBHAI JIVABHAI M 38 Independent

21 PATEL ASHOKKUMAR CHIMANLAL M 54 Independent

22 DHAVANIYA BACHUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI M 58 Lokpriya Samaj Party

23 CHAVDA ASHOKBHAI KARSHANBHAI M 33 Bahujan Samaj Party

24 SAVUKIYA LALJIBHAI MOHANLAL M 50 Independent

25 MER MAVJIBHAI KUKABHAI M 63 Independent

S06 10 GJ RAJKOT 30-Apr-09 1 MULTANI SUBHANBHAI POPATBHAI M 52 Independent

2 GOKALBHAI KHODABHAI PARMAR M 53 Lokpriya Samaj Party

3 KIRANKUMAR VALJIBHAI BHALODIA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 DHANSUKHBHAI CHUNIBHAI BHANDERI M 46 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 DR. ZAKIRHUSEN MATHAKIYA M 38 Samajwadi Party

6 ARVINDBHAI JADAVJIBHAI RATHOD M 42 Independent

7 KUBAVAT BABUDAS CHHAGANDAS M 63 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

8 PRAVINBHAI MEGHJIBHAI DENGADA M 46 Independent

9 KUVARJIBHAI MOHANBHAI BAVALIA M 54 Indian National Congress

10 JOSHI SUDHIRBHAI REVASHANKAR M 67 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

11 JADEJA SATUBHA AMARSANG M 41 National Secular Party

12 JADEJA NATUBHA AMARSANG M 39 National Secular Party

13 DHEDHI DALEECHANDBHAI LIRABHAI M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

14 KHIMSURIYA BHANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party

15 NARENDRASINH TAPUBHA JADEJA M 35 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

16 HIRABHAI GORDHANBHAI CHANGELA M 58 Independent

17 HARSODA MAHESH HIRABHAI M 25 Independent

18 BHIKHABHAI KURJIBHAI SADADIYA M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party

19 GAR PRAKASH KHIMJIBHAI M 40 Independent

20 DUDHATRA MUKUNDBHAI GOVINDBHAI M 41 Independent

21 SAROLA GEETABEN MANJIBHAI F 32 Independent

22 RABARI MOMAIYABHAI ALABHAI M 60 Independent

23 AJITSINH HARISINH JADEJA M 55 Independent

24 DR.RAJESHKUMAR SHANTIBHIA MANKADIA M 35 Independent

25 RAJGURU INDRANIL SANJAYBHAI M 43 Indian National Congress

26 NAYANBHI HASHMUKHBHAI UPADHYAY M 42 Independent

27 KESHUBHAI DHANJIBHAI VEKARIYA M 30 Independent

28 MATHAKIA USMAN HASAN M 56 Independent

29 BABUBHAI DEVJIBHAI GHAVA M 42 Lok Jan Shakti Party

30 PATADIA VINODBHAI KHODABHAI M 45 Independent

31 CHAVDA LAKHMANBHAI DEVJIBHAI M 49 Republican Party of India

32 VEKARIYA PRAGJIBHAI NATHUBHAI M 60 Independent

33 BHIKHABHAI KURJIBHAI SADADIA M 57 Independent

34 VEKARIA ALPESHBHAI KESHUBHAI M 32 Mahagujarat Janta Party

35 JASVANTBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SABHAYA M 38 Samajwadi Party

36 PIPALIA BHARATBHAI SAVJIBHAI M 52 Mahagujarat Janta Party

37 GORI BHARTIBEN MAHENDRABHAI F 26 Independent

S06 13 GJ JUNAGADH 30-Apr-09 1 BARAD JASHUBHAI DHANABHAI M 54 Indian National Congress

2 BHUVA KAMLESHBHAI LALJIBHAI M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 SOLANKI DINUBHAI BOGHABHAI M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 AKHED MAHESHBHAI VALLABHBHAI M 48 Indian Justice Party

5 KUNJADIYA VALLABHBHAI RAMBHAI M 46 Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal

6 CHANDULAL BHANUBHAI DHADUK M 42 Mahagujarat Janta Party

7 DANGAR BRIJESH RAMBHAI M 31 Rashtrawadi Sena

S06 15 GJ BHAVNAGAR 30-Apr-09 1 GOHILMAHAVIRSINHBHAGIRATHSINH M 52 Indian National Congress

2 VAGHANI PRAKSHBHAI ARJANBHAI M 38 Indian National Congress

3 RANA RAJENDRASINH GHANSHYAMSINH M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 MANDAVIA MANSUKHBHAI LAXMANBHAI M 42 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 BORICHA VALJIBHAI BAGHABHAI M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party

6 REVAR MANSUKHBHAI KHODIDASBHAI M 40 Bahujan Samaj Party

7 ZADAFIA GORDHANBHAI PRAGJIBHAI M 54 Mahagujarat Janta Party

8 ZADAFIA GORDHANBHAI PRAGJIBHAI M 54 Mahagujarat Janta Party

9 ZADAFIA GORDHANBHAI PRAGJIBHAI M 54 Mahagujarat Janta Party

10 YADAV TULSHIBHAI RAMJIBHAI M 67 Samajwadi Party

11 YADAV TULSHIBHAI RAMJIBHAI M 67 Samajwadi Party

12 YADAV TULSHIBHAI RAMJIBHAI M 67 Samajwadi Party

13 SAPARIA DINESHBHAI NANUBHAI M 45 Lokpriya Samaj Party

14 SAPARIA DINESHBHAI NANUBHAI M 45 Lokpriya Samaj Party

15 SAPARIA DINESHBHAI NANUBHAI M 45 Lokpriya Samaj Party

16 PANDYA ATULBHAI HARSHADRAI M 46 Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal

17 PANDYA ATULBHAI HARSHADRAI M 46 Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal

18 PANDYA ATULBHAI HARSHADRAI M 46 Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal

19 GOHIL NANAJIBHAI MADHABHAI M 38 Republican Party of India (A)

20 GOHIL NANAJIBHAI MADHABHAI M 38 Republican Party of India (A)

21 CHAUHAN PREMJIBHAI SHAMJIBHAI M 42 Akhil Bharatiya Congress Dal (Ambedkar)

22 MAKWANA HARINBHAI RAMNIKLAL M 37 Independent

23 MAKWANA HARINBHAI RAMNIKLAL M 37 Independent

24 MAKWANA HARINBHAI RAMNIKLAL M 37 Independent

25 GOHIL KISHORSINH BALAVANTSINH M 54 Independent

26 GOHIL KISHORSINH BALAVANTSINH M 54 Independent

27 GOHIL KISHORSINH BALAVANTSINH M 54 Independent

28 KATARIA ZINABHAI NAGAJIBHAI M 49 Independent

29 KATARIA ZINABHAI NAGAJIBHAI M 49 Independent

30 KATARIA ZINABHAI NAGAJIBHAI M 49 Independent

31 PUNANI MUKESHBHI MAGANBHAI M 43 Independent

32 PUNANI MUKESHBHI MAGANBHAI M 43 Independent

33 PUNANI MUKESHBHI MAGANBHAI M 43 Independent

34 CHAUHAN DHIRUBHAI KARSHANBHAI M 39 Independent

35 CHAUHAN DHIRUBHAI KARSHANBHAI M 39 Independent

36 CHAUHAN DHIRUBHAI KARSHANBHAI M 39 Independent

37 SONANI NARESHBHAI NANAJIBHAI M 36 Independent

38 SONANI NARESHBHAI NANAJIBHAI M 36 Independent

39 SONANI NARESHBHAI NANAJIBHAI M 36 Independent

40 CHUDASAMA MEPABHAI MAVJIBHAI M 42 Independent

41 CHUDASAMA MEPABHAI MAVJIBHAI M 42 Independent

42 CHUDASAMA MEPABHAI MAVJIBHAI M 42 Independent

43 SOLANKI MAHAMADRAFIKBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI M 50 Independent

44 SOLANKI MAHAMADRAFIKBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI M 50 Independent

45 SOLANKI MAHAMADRAFIKBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI M 50 Independent

46 DABHI DEVJIBHAI MEGHABHAI M 29 Independent

47 DABHI DEVJIBHAI MEGHABHAI M 29 Independent

48 DABHI DEVJIBHAI MEGHABHAI M 29 Independent

49 PATEL KALPESHBHAI ASHOKBHAI M 30 Independent

50 PATEL KALPESHBHAI ASHOKBHAI M 30 Independent

51 PATEL KALPESHBHAI ASHOKBHAI M 30 Independent

S06 18 GJ PANCHMAHAL 30-Apr-09 1 MANSURI MUKHTYAR MOHAMAD M 49 Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal

2 VAGHELA SHANKERSINH LAXMANSINH M 68 Indian National Congress

3 PATEL PROSOTTAMBHAI MANGALBHAI M 53 Indian National Congress

4 BAROT PRAKASHKUMAR MANEKLAL M 53 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 CHAUHAN PRABHATSINH PRATAPSINH M 67 Bharatiya Janata Party

6 MALIVAD KALUBHAI HIRABHAI M 58 Bharatiya Janata Party

7 SHAIKH KALIM A.LATIF M 42 Lok Jan Shakti Party

8 SHUKLA ARVINDKUMAR JYANTILAL M 66 Bahujan Samaj Party

9 BHABHOR RASILABEN SAMSUBHAI F 26 Indian Justice Party

S06 19 GJ DAHOD 30-Apr-09 1 KATARA SINGJIBHAI JALJIBHAI M 62 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 KALARA RAMSINGBHAI NANJIBHAI M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 DAMOR SOMJIBHAI PUNJABHAI M 70 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 TAVIYAD DR. PRABHABEN KISHORSINH F 54 Indian National Congress

5 MEDA KALSINGBHAI TAJSINHBHAI M 57 Nationalist Congress Party

6 PARMAR DINESHBHAI NAGJIBHAI M 28 Indian Justice Party

7 BARIYA NAVALSINGBHAI MADIABHAI M 39 Mahagujarat Janta Party

8 MUNIA KAMALSINH CHHAGANBHAI M 61 Samajwadi Party

S06 20 GJ VADODARA 30-Apr-09 1 GAEKWAD SATYAJITSINH DULIPSINH M 46 Indian National Congress

2 PUROHIT VINAYKUMAR RAMANBHAI M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 BALKRISHNA KHANDERAO SHUKLA M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 GIRISHBHAI MADHAVLAL BHAVSAR M 42 Independent

5 THAVARDAS AMULRAI CHOITHANI M 63 Independent

6 DASGUPTA TAPANBHAI SHANTIMAY M 45 Independent

7 PARMAR BHARTIBEN KISHORCHANDRA F 36 Independent

8 MALEK MAHEBUBBHAI RAHIMBHAI M 42 Independent

9 VASAVA HARILAL SHANABHAI M 46 Independent

S06 21 GJ CHHOTA UDAIPUR 30-Apr-09 1 RATHWA RAMSINGBHAI PATALBHAI M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 RATHWA NARANBHAI JEMLABHAI M 55 Indian National Congress

3 BHIL PRAKASHBHAI SOMABHAI M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 RATHWA SATISHBHAI RAMANBHAI M 32 Janata Dal (United)

5 VASAVA(BHIL) VITTHALBHAI VENIBHAI M 63 Independent

S06 22 GJ BHARUCH 30-Apr-09 1 PATEL MEHRUNNISHA VALLIBHAI F 40 Lok Jan Shakti Party

2 PATHAN JAHANGIRKHA AHEMADKHA M 69 Indian National Congress

3 PATHAN JAHANGIRKHA AHEMADKHA M 69 Indian National Congress

4 MANSUKHBHAI DHANJIBHAI VASAVA M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 UGHARATDAR UMARJI AHMED M 64 Indian National Congress

6 UGHARATDAR UMARJI AHMED M 64 Indian National Congress

7 UGHARATDAR UMARJI AHMED M 64 Indian National Congress

8 UGHARATDAR UMARJI AHMED M 64 Indian National Congress

9 MANSUKHBHAI DHANJIBHAI VASAVA M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party

10 MANSUKHBHAI DHANJIBHAI VASAVA M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party

11 MORI CHHATRASINH PUJABHAI M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party

12 MORI CHHATRASINH PUJABHAI M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party

13 MORI CHHATRASINH PUJABHAI M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party

14 VASAVA SURESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI M 40 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

15 VASAVA DILIPKUMAR GULSINGBHAI M 32 Independent

16 PANDEY SANATKUMAR RAJARAMBHAI M 32 Bahujan Samaj Party

17 BASHIRBHAI MAHAMEDBHAI FOJDAR M 44 Independent

18 VASAVA CHHOTUBHAI AMARSINHBHAI M 62 Janata Dal (United)

19 BHAGAT ANILKUMAR CHHITUBHAI M 44 Janata Dal (United)

20 LAD MAHIPATBHAI MAGANBHAI M 52 Independent

21 PATEL THAKORBHAI CHANDULAL M 58 Independent

22 HEMANTKUMAR JERAMBHAI GOHIL M 31 Independent

23 MANGROLA KANAKSINH MOHANSINH M 58 Samajwadi Party

24 MANGROLA VIKRAMSINH KANAKSINH M 28 Samajwadi Party

25 PATEL NARESHKUMAR BHAGVANBHAI M 48 Mahagujarat Janta Party

26 PATEL NARESHKUMAR BHAGVANBHAI M 48 Mahagujarat Janta Party

27 NARENDRASINH RANDHIRSINH VASHI M 37 Loktantrik Samajwadi Party

28 PARMAR BALVANTSINH VIJAYSINH M 53 Nationalist Congress Party

29 PATHAN NISHARKHAN ZAHIRKHAN M 38 Independent

30 LAKDAWALA SHAKIL AHMED M 43 Independent

31 PATEL USMANBHAI GULAMBHAI M 26 Independent

S06 25 GJ NAVSARI 30-Apr-09 1 NAIK YOGESHKUMAR THAKORBHAI M 54 Nationalist Congress Party

2 C. R. PATIL M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 RAJPUT DHANSUKHABHAI BHAGVATIPRASAD M 51 Indian National Congress

4 SHAILESHBHAI BISHESWAR SHRIVASTAV M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 AMULKUMAR DHIRUBHAI DESAI M 46 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

6 AAZADKUMAR CHATURBHAI PATEL M 33 Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Party

7 YADAV GANGAPRASAD LALANBHAI M 55 Mahagujarat Janta Party

8 KANUBHAI DEVJIBHAI SUKHADIA M 47 Independent

9 JASHAVANTBHAI DALPATBHAI PANCHAL M 48 Independent

10 TARUNBHAI CHAMPAKBHAI PATEL M 39 Independent

11 PATEL PRAVINCHANDRA MANILAL M 52 Independent

12 PRAKASH MANHAR SHAH M 45 Independent

13 PRAVINBHAI RANGILDAS KAPASIYAWALA M 71 Independent

14 YADAV RAJENDRAKUMAR RAMRAJ M 35 Independent

15 RATHOD GOVINDBHAI LAXMANBHAI M 52 Independent

16 VARANKAR KAMALBEN KASHIRAM F 50 Independent

17 SHATRUDHANDAS OMKARDAS SUGAT (BAIRAGI) M 78 Independent

18 SATYAJIT JAYANTILAL SHETH M 41 Independent

S06 26 GJ VALSAD 30-Apr-09 1 DHIRUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 NARESHBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 LAXMANBHAI CHHAGANBHAI VARLI M 51 Independent

4 BHOYE NAYNESHBHAI MADHUBHAI M 31 Samajwadi Party

5 GAVLI CHHAGANBHAI PILUBHAI M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party

6 PATEL PANKAJKUMAR PRABHUBHAI M 40 Aadivasi Sena Party

7 KISHANBHAI VESTABHAI PATEL M 46 Indian National Congress

8 JEETUBHAI HARJIBHAI CHAUDHARI M 45 Indian National Congress

9 RAMBHAI KOYABHAI PATEL M 59 Independent

S10 3 KA BAGALKOT 30-Apr-09 1 SHANKAR TELI M 33 Independent

2 MANOHAR H.AYYANNAVAR M 51 Independent

3 MALAKAJAPPANAVAR BASAYYA M 49 Janata Dal (Secular)

4 KALLAPPA REVANASIDDAPPA KADECHUR M 43 Independent

5 JAGADISH TIMMANAGOUDA PATIL M 59 Indian National Congress

6 BASAVARAJ KALAKAPPA PUJAR M 42 Nationalist Congress Party

7 HULLANAGOUDA CHANDANAGOUDA PATIL M 70 Independent

8 GADDIGOUDAR PARVATGOUDA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

9 PATIL JAGADISH M 59 Indian National Congress

10 DANAPPA MALLAPPA ASANGI M 38 Independent

11 CHINCHOLI SANTOSHKUMAR SAHEBGOUDA M 25 Independent

12 GADADANNAVAR RAMANNA BHIMAPPA M 47 Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangha

13 CHANDRASHEKHAR HANAMANT BANDIWADDAR M 29 Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal

14 PARASHURAM JALAGAR M 48 Pyramid Party of India

15 PARASHURAM JALAGAR M 48 Janata Dal (Secular)

16 KRISHNAGOUDA RANGANAGOUDA PATIL M 56 Independent

17 R. RAMESH BABU M 38 Janata Dal (Secular)

18 R.RAMESH BABU M 38 Janata Dal (Secular)

19 BADASHA RAJESAB MUJAWAR M 40 Independent

20 KRISHNAGOUDA RANGANAGOUDA PATIL M 56 Independent

21 PATIL VIJAYKUMAR M 46 Janata Dal (Secular)

22 PANDIT BODALI M 33 Independent

23 GADADANNAVAR RAMANNA BHIMAPPA M 47 Independent

24 GADADANNAVAR RAMANNA BHIMAPPA M 47 Independent

25 R.RAMESH BABU M 38 Independent

26 R.RAMESH BABU M 38 Independent

27 RENUKARADHYA HIREMATH M 29 Independent

28 SANNAGOUDAR GURURAJ SATYAPPAGOUDA M 27 Independent

29 PAKALI FAROOQ M 33 Bahujan Samaj Party

30 SINDHUR GURUBASAVARYA M 48 Janata Dal (Secular)

31 NAZIR DUNDASI M 31 Independent

32 SANGMESH .G. BHAVIKATTI M 29 Independent

S10 10 KA HAVERI 30-Apr-09 1 RAMACHANDRAPPA GUDDAPPA BILLAL M 59 Independent

2 CHANDRAGOUDA HANUMANTA GOUDA PATIL M 29 Independent

3 FAKKIRESH SHAMBHU BIJAPUR M 39 Independent

4 SHIVAKUMAR CHANNABASAPPA UDASI M 42 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 BASAVARAJ SHANKRAPPA DESAI M 38 Independent

6 JAGADEESH YANKAPPA DODDAMANI M 35 Independent

7 RAJESAB RAHAMANSAB SIDNEKOPPA M 65 Independent

8 PRABHU K PATIL M 31 Janata Dal (United)

9 JAVALI ASHOKAPPA MALLAPPA M 43 Nationalist Congress Party

10 RAMACHANDRASA SAHASRARJUNSA HABIB M 26 Independent

11 IGAL DILLPPA KARIYAPPA M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party

12 KRISHNAJI RAGHAVENDRARAO OMKAR M 32 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

13 MULLANAVAR ABDULRAJAK MODINSAB M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party

14 MEHABUB KUTUBSAB NADAF M 47 Independent

15 SALEEM AHAMAD M 45 Indian National Congress

16 PATIL SHIVAKUMARGOUDA M 42 Janata Dal (Secular)

17 MANJUNATH KALAVEERAPPA PANCHANAN M 38 Independent

18 DESAI MALLIKARJUN BASAPPA M 61 Independent

19 SALEEM AKBAR NAIK M 30 Independent

20 DAYANAND RAMACHANDRA RATHOD M 35 Independent

21 ALLABAX TIMMAPUR M 34 Independent

22 BADIGER KOTESHWAR M 28 Independent

23 VASTRAD VEERBHADRAYYA KALAKAYYA M 47 Bharatiya Janata Party

S10 11 KA DHARWAD 30-Apr-09 1 PRALHAD JOSHI M 46 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 CHANNABASAPPA.S.KUSUGAL M 48 Independent

3 RAJANNA.P.KADDLYANAVARAMATH M 36 Independent

4 KUNNUR MANJUNATH CHANNAPPA M 55 Indian National Congress

5 BAGWAN NASIR PAPULSAB M 51 Janata Dal (Secular)

6 RAMACHANDRA KALINGAPPA MAHAR M 59 Independent

7 TALAKALLAMATH MAHESH GURUPADAYYA M 52 Nationalist Congress Party

8 ASHOK BADDI M 38 Independent

9 KURUBAR BEERAPPA M 38 Independent

10 BABUSAB KASHEEMNAVAR M 61 Janata Dal (Secular)

11 PATIL GURUPADAGOUDA M 62 Independent

12 JANUMALA BASKAR M 39 Independent

13 BASANGOUDA HANSI M 63 Independent

14 PANCH MAHALDAR M 38 Independent

15 NIRJAN HANMANTSA M 40 Janata Dal (United)

16 SHANKRAPPA YADAVANNAVAR M 50 Independent

17 SONDUR RAGHAVENDRA SRINIVAS M 46 Janata Dal (Secular)

18 ALLISAB SANDIMANI M 30 Independent

19 KILLADAR ALLABAKSH M 52 Nationalist Congress Party

20 TAKAPPA KALAL M 59 Independent

21 MULLA KASHIMASAB M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party

22 PREMANATH KASHAPPA CHIKKTUMBAL M 31 Bahujan Samaj Party

23 MARUTI RAMAPPA HANASI M 40 Independent

24 DADAPEER KOPPAL M 50 Ambedkar National Congress

25 KALLIMANI IBRAHIM M 32 Independent

26 IMAMHUSEN KUNDAGOL M 46 Independent

27 GADAGKAR MOHAMMAD YOOSUF M 56 Muslim League Kerala State Committee

28 SHANKRAPPA JINNAKAR M 63 Independent

29 HULLI MOHAMMEDALI M 67 Independent

30 JAMIRAHMEDKHAN M 27 Independent

31 MOHAMMED ISMAIL BHADRAPUR M 28 Independent

32 BIJAPUR JALALSAHEB M 78 Independent

33 BALANNAVAR BASAVARAJ M 30 Independent

34 KASHEEMNAVAR BABUSAB M 61 Independent

35 PATIL GURUPADAGOUDA M 62 Janata Dal (Secular)

S10 13 KA DAVANAGERE 30-Apr-09 1 RAMESH HULI M 35 Independent

2 MUJEEB PATEL M.H.K. M 25 Independent

3 DR. SRIDHARA UDUPA M 56 Independent

4 SUBHAN KHAN M 45 Independent

5 SIDDESWARA G.M. M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

6 DR.RAJU C. M 44 Independent

7 MALLIKARJUN S.S. M 42 Indian National Congress

8 IDLI RAMAPPA M 46 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

9 NAGARAJA M 30 Independent

10 H K KENCHVEERAPPA M 65 Independent

11 L.H. PATIL M 41 Independent

12 RAJASHEKHARAYYA B. M 62 Independent

13 DR. HIDAYATHUR RAHMAN KHAN M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party

14 NINGAPPA A. M 77 Independent

15 MALLIKARJUN L.S. M 39 Independent

16 AMANULLA KHAN J. M 35 Independent

17 JAYANNA ITAGI M 38 Independent

18 ALUR M.G. SWAMY M 62 Independent

19 SATHISH B.M M 45 Independent

20 INAYAT ALI KHAN M 31 Independent

21 YOGESHWARA RAO SINDHE M 42 Independent

22 RAJASHEKAR M 44 Independent

23 HANUMANTHAPPA M 32 Independent

24 MANJUNATH K. M 43 Independent

25 MAHESH Y. M 40 Independent

26 EHSANULLA PATEL H.M. M 53 Independent

27 SUDESH G.M. M 31 Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)

28 CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S. M 59 Independent

29 VEERESH T. M 35 Independent

30 SIDDESHI G. M 42 Independent

31 MARUTHI H. M 51 Independent

32 GNANA PRAKASH B. M 30 Independent

33 ESWARAPPA H. M 30 Independent

34 NAGARAJAPPA M 46 Independent

35 KALLERUDRESHAPPA K.B. M 49 Janata Dal (Secular)

S10 14 KA SHIMOGA 30-Apr-09 1 UMESHKUMAR S M 38 Janata Dal (United)

2 N DINESH KUMAR M 40 Independent

3 M.P. SRIDHAR. BYNDOOR M 44 Independent

4 AKHIL AHMED M 45 Independent

5 H.S. SHEKARAPPA M 47 Independent

6 J. JAYAPPA M 40 Bahujan Samaj Party

7 S. BANGARAPPA M 76 Indian National Congress

8 D.S. ESHWARAPPA M 41 Independent

9 T. CHAKRAVARTI NAYAKA M 70 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

10 MAINUDDIN.M.S M 35 Independent

11 C. MURUGAN M 29 Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)

12 B,Y. RAGHAVENDRA M 36 Bharatiya Janata Party

13 Y.H. NAGARAJA M 51 Independent

14 MANJAPPA. S. M 58 Independent

15 RANGANATHA T.L. M 50 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

16 H.G. LOKESHA M 47 Independent

17 V. SHAIK MEHABOOB M 43 Independent

S10 15 KA UDUPI CHIKMAGALUR 30-Apr-09 1 GANAPATHI SHETTIGARA M 58 Independent

2 SRINIVASA M 51 Independent

3 DENIAL FEDRIK RANGER M 35 Independent

4 JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE M 57 Indian National Congress

5 JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE M 57 Indian National Congress

6 JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE M 57 Indian National Congress

7 JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE M 57 Indian National Congress

8 SMT. RADHA F 49 Communist Party of India

9 SMT. RADHA F 49 Communist Party of India

10 SMT. RADHA F 49 Communist Party of India

11 DR. SRIDHAR UDUPA M 56 Independent

12 UMESH KUMARA M 38 Independent

13 B.VINAYAK MALLYA M 26 Independent

14 STEVEN JOHN MENEZES M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party

15 STEVEN JOHN MENEZES M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party

16 ABDUL RASHEED M 40 Independent

17 ABDUL RASHEED M 40 Independent

18 VENKATRAMANA HEGADE.B M 39 Jai Vijaya Bharathi Party

19 D.V.SADANANDA GOWDA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

20 D.V.SADANANDA GOWDA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

21 D.V.SADANANDA GOWDA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

22 D.V.SADANANDA GOWDA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party

S10 16 KA HASSAN 30-Apr-09 1 KOVI BABANNA M 47 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

2 B. C. VIJAYAKUMAR M 43 Independent

3 A. P. AHAMED M 66 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 B. SHIVRAMU M 58 Indian National Congress

5 K. H. HANUME GOWDA M 78 Bharatiya Janata Party

6 S. HARISH(S. C. S) M 37 Independent

7 AIJAZ AHAMED FAROOQI M 52 Republican Party of India (A)

8 H. D. DEVEGOWDA M 76 Janata Dal (Secular)

9 KODIHALLI CHANDRASHEKAR M 51 Sarvodaya Karnataka Paksha

10 M. MAHESH URF HARSHA M 38 Independent

11 K. SHANMUKHA M 42 Independent

12 RAJANI NARAYANAGOWDA M 34 Independent

13 K. REVANNA M 34 Independent

14 G. P. SANTHOSH GUPTHA M 28 Independent

15 B. LOHITHGOWDA KUNDURU M 30 Bharatiya Janata Party

16 BOMMEGOWDA M 62 Independent

17 T. R. VIJAYA KUMAR M 33 Independent

18 DEVARAJ. P. B M 26 Independent

19 DYAVEGOWDA M 53 Independent

S10 17 KA DAKSHINA KANNADA 30-Apr-09 1 SUPREETHA KUMAR POOJARY M 31 Independent

2 JANARDHANA POOJARY M 71 Indian National Congress

3 VASUDEVA M P M 49 Independent

4 DR.THIRUMALA RAYA HALEMANE M 55 Independent

5 G.MOHAMMED M 48 Independent

6 K RAMA BHAT URIMAJALU M 78 Independent

7 ABDUL RAZAK M 50 Independent

8 MADHAVA B M 71 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

9 MOHAMMED SALI M 40 Independent

10 GIRISH A RAI M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party

11 NALIN KUMAR KATEEL M 42 Bharatiya Janata Party

12 K MONAPPA BHANDARY M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party

13 C AHAMMAD JAMAL M 54 Muslim League Kerala State Committee

14 ANANDA GATTY M 59 Independent

15 SUBRAHMANYA KUMAR KUNTIKANA MATA M 36 Independent

16 DR.U.P.SHIVANANDA M 59 Independent

S10 20 KA MANDYA 30-Apr-09 1 SHAMBHULINGEGOWDA M 48 Independent

2 KOWDLEY CHANNAPPA M 60 Janata Dal (United)

3 K S NANJAPPA M 56 Independent

4 K S PUTTANNAIAH M 60 Sarvodaya Party

5 N NANJUNDAIAH M 57 Independent

6 S B SHIVALINGEGOWDA M 62 Indian National Congress

7 SUMANTH M 60 Independent

8 M KRISHNAMURTHY M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party

9 VENKTESH R M 37 Independent

10 T S ASHRAF M 33 Independent

11 SHIVARAMU M 41 Independent

12 L R SHIVARAMEGOWDA M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party

13 SHAKUNTHALA F 29 Independent

14 H S RAMANNA M 45 Independent

15 H R CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH M 43 Independent

16 BALASUBRAMANIAN M 38 Independent

17 CHELUVARAYA SWAMY M 49 Janata Dal (Secular)

18 M H AMARANATH @ AMBAREESH M 57 Indian National Congress

19 CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH M 46 Independent

20 N J RAJESH M 35 Independent

21 KEMPEGOWDA M 36 Independent

22 BOREGOWDA M 57 Independent

23 M P MUNAVAR SHARIF M 50 Independent

24 H V MADEGOWDA M 47 Independent

25 K SHIVANAND M 45 Independent

26 K KEMPEGOWDA M 47 Independent

27 JHONSON CHINNAPPAN M 32 Independent

S10 21 KA MYSORE 30-Apr-09 1 C.H.VIJAYASHANKAR M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 SRINATH-PATHRIKE M 39 Independent

3 M.BASAVANNA M 30 Independent

4 S.P.MAHADEVAPPA M 59 Independent

5 SYED NIZAM ALI M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party

6 P.KARIGOWDA M 63 Independent

7 P.PARASHIVAMURTHY M 41 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party

8 ADAGURU H VISHWANATH M 59 Indian National Congress

9 M.ANWARJI M 62 Independent

10 ARHSADULLA SHARIFF M 40 Bharatiya Praja Paksha

11 M.V.SANTHOSHKUMAR M 27 Independent

12 M.S.BALAJI M 51 Ambedkar National Congress

13 SANTHOSH KUMAR.P M 35 Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)

14 S.P.GEETHA F 36 United Women Front

15 RAJU M 54 Independent

16 B.A.JIVIJAYA F 71 Janata Dal (Secular)

17 M.LEELAVATHI F 51 Independent

18 RAFEEQ M 27 Independent

19 E.RAJU M 42 Independent

20 M.NAGENDRA M 42 Independent

21 DR.E.KESHAMMA F 32 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

22 K.P.CHIDANANDA M 48 Janata Dal (United)

23 B.D.LINGAPPARAI M 52 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

S24 33 UP UNNAO 30-Apr-09 1 SHIVSHANKERKUSHWAHA M 46 Akhil Bharatiya Ashok Sena

2 RAMESHKUMARSINGH M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 ANNUTANDON F 51 Indian National Congress

4 DEEPAKKUMAR M 40 Samajwadi Party

5 SUNILKUMAR M 35 Independent

6 RASHIDQAMAR M 28 Muslim League Kerala State Committee

7 BASUDEVVISHARAD M 65 Vikas Party

8 ABHICHHEDILALYADAV M 47 Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (United)

9 RAMASHREY M 36 Independent

10 RAJKISHORESINGH M 36 Rashtravadi Communist Party

11 LALA M 40 Independent

12 UMESHCHANDRA M 25 Apna Dal

13 RAJUKASHYAP M 40 Vanchit Jamat Party

14 RAMAOTAR M 63 Buddhiviveki Vikas Party

15 KRISHNAPALSINGHVAIS M 62 Independent

16 CHANDRASHEKHARTIWARI M 43 Independent

17 ARUNSHANKARSHUKLA M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party

18 ASHOKKUMAR M 39 Independent

19 CHHEDILAL M 42 Republican Party of India (A)

20 RAMSEVAK M 44 Ambedkar Samaj Party

21 UDAISHANKERTIWARI M 64 Independent

22 JAVEDRAZA M 39 Janata Dal (United)

23 KAILASHNATHMISHRA M 66 Independent

24 DRCOLPRATAPSHANKARTIWARI M 65 Rashtriya Raksha Dal

S24 34 UP MOHANLALGANJ 30-Apr-09 1 R.K.CHAUDHARY M 50 Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

2 ASHA DEVI F 38 Bharatiya Grameen Dal

3 JAI PRAKASH M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 SUSHILA SAROJ F 58 Samajwadi Party

5 JAIPAL PATHIK M 50 Rashtravadi Communist Party

6 NARENDRA KUMAR M 38 Indian National Congress

7 DINESH KUMAR M 38 Independent

8 SATTIDEEN M 53 Uttar Pradesh Republican Party

9 RANJAN M 38 Bharatiya Janata Party

10 RAM DHAN M 42 Independent

11 RAJU SONKAR M 46 Independent

12 AMRESH KUMAR M 27 Rashtravadi Communist Party

13 SATISH SONKAR M 40 Dharam Nirpeksh Dal

14 BINDU DEVI F 33 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

15 SARJU M 52 Independent

S24 35 UP LUCKNOW 30-Apr-09 1 RAVI SHANKAR M 28 Bharat Punarnirman Dal

2 SUKHVEER SINGH M 41 Independent

3 DR. AKHILESHWAR SAHAI M 39 Independent

4 RAVI M 32 Vikas Party

5 AMIT PANDEY M 33 Independent

6 RAJESH KUMAR M 25 Independent

7 PADAM CHANDRA GUPTA M 35 Independent

8 DR. AKHILESH DAS GUPTA M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party

9 SEHNAAZ SIDRAT F 48 Independent

10 NAND KUMAR M 44 Bharatiya Grameen Dal

11 DASHARATH M 36 Rashtriya Mazdoor Ekta Party

12 MOHD. IRSHAD M 40 Navbharat Nirman Party

13 A. HAROON ALI M 48 Independent

14 LAL JI TANDON M 73 Bharatiya Janata Party

15 ANUPAM MISHRA M 37 Swarajya Party Of India

16 ZUBAIR AHMAD M 32 Independent

17 PRAVEEN KUMAR MISHRA M 32 Eklavya Samaj Party

18 RISAV KUMAR SHARMA M 28 Maulik Adhikar Party

19 BAL MUKUND TIWARI M 26 Independent

20 S.MD.AHAMAD M 59 Independent

21 HARJEET SINGH M 48 Independent

22 CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY M 60 Independent

23 S.R.DARAPURI M 65 Independent

24 RADHEYSHYAM M 37 Independent

25 NAFISA ALI SODHI F 52 Samajwadi Party

26 DR.KHAN MOHMAD ATIF M 64 Muslim Majlis Uttar Pradesh

27 AMBIKA PRASAD M 49 Independent

28 MANOJ SINGH M 37 Independent

29 VINAY PRAKASH M 36 Independent

30 RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY M 40 All India Trinamool Congress

31 RAJESH KUMAR NAITHANI M 35 Independent

32 CHATURI PRASAD M 56 Independent

33 MURLI PRASAD M 56 Rashtriya Kranti Party

34 ASHOK KUMAR PAL M 31 Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party

35 SITARAM M 38 Uttar Pradesh Republican Party

36 NITIN DWIWEDI M 25 Independent

37 MUSTAQ KHAN M 38 Indian Justice Party

38 RAM KUMAR SHUKLA M 62 Independent

39 SMT. JUGUNU RANJAN F 47 Jaganmay Nari Sangathan

40 LT.COL.(RETD.) KUSH PRASAD MATHUR M 55 Rashtriya Raksha Dal

41 RITA BAHUGUNA JOSHI F 59 Indian National Congress

42 RAJIV RANJAN TIWARI M 29 Independent

43 SUMAN LATA DIXIT F 53 Independent

44 DHEERAJ M 37 Independent

45 AMRESH MISHRA M 43 Independent

46 DEVENDRA M 25 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

47 KEDAR MAL AGRAWAL M 55 Independent

48 AMAR SINGH YADAV M 53 Independent

49 SAYED MOH. LADEL M 45 Independent

50 KAMAL CHANDRA M 39 Gondvana Gantantra Party

51 SHARAD KUMAR CHAUDHARY M 35 Bharatiya Rashtriya Bahujan Samaj Vikas Party

52 GIRISH CHANDRA M 62 Independent

53 C.A. RAJESH RASTOGI M 52 Independent

54 K.C. KARDAM M 65 Independent

55 CHAMAN BIHARI TANDON M 66 Independent

56 LADDAN M 49 Independent

S24 53 UP BARABANKI 30-Apr-09 1 KAMALA PRASAD RAWAT M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 P.L.PUNIA M 64 Indian National Congress

3 RAM NARESH RAWAT M 44 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 RAM SAGAR M 62 Samajwadi Party

5 VED PRAKASH RAWAT M 29 Bahujan Samaj Party

6 JEEVAN M 26 Janvadi Party(Socialist)

7 DESHRAJ M 49 Bharatiya Subhash Sena

8 BABADEEN M 49 Bharatiya Republican Paksha

9 BHAGAUTI M 54 Apna Dal

10 SANTRAM M 40 Navbharat Nirman Party

11 KAMLESH KUMAR M 38 Independent

12 GAYA PRASAD M 50 Independent

13 DEPENDRA KUMAR RAWAT M 25 Independent

14 PREM CHANDRA ARYA M 33 Independent

15 RAM AUTAR M 39 Independent

16 LAJJAWATI KANCHAN F 43 Independent

17 VISHRAM DAS M 67 Independent

S25 1 WB COOCH BEHAR 30-Apr-09 1 ARGHYA ROY PRODHAN M 37 All India Trinamool Congress

2 KRISHNA KANTA BARMAN M 29 Party for Democratic Socialism

3 NIRANJAN BARMAN M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 NRIPENDRA NATH ROY M 49 All India Forward Bloc

5 HITENDRA DAS M 54 Independent

6 HAREKRISHNA SARKAR M 37 Republican Party of India

7 BANGSHI BADAN BARMAN M 41 Independent

8 BHABENDRA NATH BARMAN M 61 Bharatiya Janata Party

9 DALENDRA ROY M 50 Amra Bangalee

10 NUBASH BARMAN M 46 Independent

S25 2 WB ALIPURDUARS 30-Apr-09 1 MANOHAR TIRKEY M 54 Revolutionary Socialist Party

2 ELIAS NARJINARY M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 BILKAN BARA M 62 Samajwadi Jan Parishad

4 JOUCHIM BAXLA M 55 Independent

5 DWIPEN ORAON M 30 Kamtapur Progressive Party

6 KAMAL LAMA M 49 Independent

7 THADDEVS LAKRA M 60 Independent

8 PABAN KUMAR LAKRA M 56 All India Trinamool Congress

9 MANOJ TIGGA M 36 Bharatiya Janata Party

10 PAUL DEXION KHARIYA M 55 Independent

S25 3 WB JALPAIGURI 30-Apr-09 1 MAHENDRA KUMAR ROY M 54 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 PRITHWIRAJ ROY M 36 Independent

3 SHANTI KUMAR SARKAR M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 HARIBHAKTA SARDAR M 54 Independent

5 SATYEN PRASAD ROY M 46 Independent

6 SUKHBILAS BARMA M 64 Indian National Congress

7 PABITRA MOITRA M 58 Amra Bangalee

8 DR. DHIRENDRA NATH DAS M 47 Nationalist Congress Party

9 SRI CHINMAY SARKAR M 30 Independent

10 SRI MUNDRIKA RAM M 51 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

11 SRI DWIPENDRA NATH PRAMANIK M 37 Bharatiya Janata Party

S25 4 WB DARJEELING 30-Apr-09 1 JASWANT SINGH M 70 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 JIBESH SARKAR M 55 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

3 DAWA NARBULA M 73 Indian National Congress

4 SHANTA KUMAR SINGHA M 40 Nationalist Congress Party

5 HARIDAS THAKUR M 62 Bahujan Samaj Party

6 ABHIJIT MAJUMDAR M 48 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

7 TRILOK KUMAR DEWAN M 63 Independent

8 NIRANJAN SAHA M 50 Amra Bangalee

9 BAIDYANATH ROY M 55 Indian Peoples Forward Block

10 ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL M 48 Independent

11 NITU JAI M 35 Independent

12 RAM GANESH BARAIK M 44 Independent

13 HELARIUS EKKA M 50 Independent

S25 5 WB RAIGANJ 30-Apr-09 1 ANIL BISWAS M 49 Independent

2 GOPESH CH. SARKAR M 66 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 SULEMAN HAFIJI M 51 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)

4 MANAS JANA M 36 Independent

5 UPENDRA NATH DAS M 47 Independent

6 AKHIL RANJAN MONDAL M 62 Bahujan Samaj Party

7 BIRESWAR LAHIRI M 61 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

8 NACHHIR ALI PRAMANIK M 64 Independent

9 ABDUL KARIM CHOUDHURY M 62 Independent

10 DEEPA DASMUNSHI F 48 Indian National Congress

11 MATIUR RAHMAN M 49 Janata Dal (United)

12 FAIZ RAHAMAN M 45 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

S25 6 WB BALURGHAT 30-Apr-09 1 BIPLAB MITRA M 57 All India Trinamool Congress

2 SAMU SOREN M 48 Independent

3 PRASANTA KUMAR MAJUMDAR M 68 Revolutionary Socialist Party

4 GOBINDA HANSDA M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party

5 PRAHALLAD BARMAN M 32 Independent

6 MRIDUL GHOSH. M 30 Assam United Democratic Front

7 SUBHASH CH. BARMAN M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party

8 CHAMRU ORAM M 52 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

S25 7 WB MALDAHA UTTAR 30-Apr-09 1 AMLAN BHADURI M 35 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 BIKASH BISWAS M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 MAUSAM NOOR M 27 Indian National Congress

4 SAILEN SARKAR M 68 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5 ATUL CHANDRA MANDAL M 39 Independent

6 MALLIKA SARKAR (NANDY) F 50 Independent

7 MONOWARA BEGAM F 39 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

8 ASIM KUMAR CHOWDHURY M 47 Independent

9 AMINA KHATUN F 29 Independent

S25 8 WB MALDAHA DAKSHIN 30-Apr-09 1 ABDUR RAZZAQUE M 60 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 ABU HASEM KHAN CHOUDHURY M 65 Indian National Congress

3 BHARAT CHANDRA MANDAL M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party

4 DIPAK KUMAR CHOWDHURY M 47 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 MOHAMMAD EJARUDDIN M 74 Muslim League Kerala State Committee

6 MD. KAMAL BASIRUJJAMAN M 32 Independent

7 RUSTAM ALI M 39 Independent

8 MANIRUDDIN SAIKH M 64 Paschim Banga Rajya Muslim League

9 MANJUR ALAHI MUNSHI M 42 Independent

10 SHYAMAL DAS M 38 Independent

S25 32 WB GHATAL 30-Apr-09 1 MATILAL KHATUA M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party

2 NARAYAN CHANDRA SAMAT M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party

3 GURUDAS DASGUPTA M 73 Communist Party of India

4 NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY M 66 All India Trinamool Congress

5 LIYAKAT KHAN M 31 Indian Justice Party

6 ARUN KUMAR DAS M 40 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

7 AHITOSH MAITY M 53 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

S25 33 WB JHARGRAM 30-Apr-09 1 AMRIT HASNDA M 63 Indian National Congress

2 NABENDU MAHALI M 34 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 ADITYA KISKU M 46 Independent

4 PULIN BIHARI BASKE M 40 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

5 SUSIL MANDI M 28 Independent

6 CHUNIBALA HANSDA M 44 Jharkhand Party

7 PANCHANAN HANSDA M 70 Bahujan Samaj Party

8 SUNIL MURMU M 30 Independent

9 DARKU MURMU M 56 Independent

S25 34 WB MEDINIPUR 30-Apr-09 1 DIPAK KUMAR GHOSH M 72 All India Trinamool Congress

2 SANJAY MISHRA M 49 Independent

3 PRADIP PATNAIK M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 PARTHA ADDHYA M 32 Independent

5 SRI AMIT MAITRA M 63 Independent

6 PRABODH PANDA M 63 Communist Party of India

7 ASOK KUMAR GOLDER M 64 Bahujan Samaj Party

9 SUKUMAR DE M 54 Independent

10 JOYNAL ABEDIN SEKH M 52 Independent

11 MUKUL KUMAR MAITY M 33 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

12 NEPAL CHANDRA DAS M 60 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

S25 35 WB PURULIA 30-Apr-09 1 ASIT BARAN MAHATO M 38 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 NILKAMAL MAHATO M 69 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 RENUKA SINGH DEV F 60 Indian National Congress

4 SHANTIRAM MAHATO M 56 Indian National Congress

5 SAYANTAN BASU M 32 Bharatiya Janata Party

6 NARAHARI MAHATO M 54 All India Forward Bloc

7 AJIT PRASAD MAHATO M 56 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

8 ABINASH SAREN M 39 Independent

9 ABHIRAM BESRA M 41 Jharkhand Disom Party

10 AMULYA RATAN MAHATO M 68 Independent

11 UMACHARAN MAHATO M 69 Independent

12 DHIREN CHANDRA MAHATO M 48 Independent

13 DHIREN RAJAK M 44 Jharkhand Party (Naren)

14 BISAMBAR MURA M 42 Independent

15 MUKHES SAHU M 36 All Jharkhand Students Union

16 MRITYUNJAY MAHATO M 46 Independent

S25 36 WB BANKURA 30-Apr-09 1 BASUDEB ACHARIA M 67 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 LAKSHMI SARKAR F 54 Independent

3 SUBRATA MUKHERJEE M 63 Indian National Congress

4 BYASDEB CHAKRABORTTY M 37 Janata Dal (United)

5 PARESH MARANDI M 54 Independent

6 PRABIR BANERJEE M 36 Independent

7 SUDHIR KUMAR MURMU M 40 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

8 GANESH ROY M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party

9 RAHUL (BISWAJIT) SINHA M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party

10 ASWINI DULEY M 51 Jharkhand Party (Naren)

11 TAPAN KUMAR PATHAK M 27 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party

S25 37 WB BISHNUPUR 30-Apr-09 1 SUSMITA BAURI F 34 Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2 UMA KANTA BHAKAT M 62 Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

3 TAPAS DAS M 31 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

4 UTTAM BOURI M 30 Independent

5 SEULI SAHA F 39 All India Trinamool Congress

6 JAYANTA MONDAL M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party

7 MANIK BAURI M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party

U03 1 DN DADAR & NAGAR HAVELI 30-Apr-09 1 DELKAR MOHANBHAI SANJIBHAI M 46 Indian National Congress

2 PATEL SUMANBHAI THAKORBHAI M 37 Indian National Congress

3 PATEL NATUBHAI GOMANBHAI M 36 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 MADHA JATARIYABHAI BUDHIYABHAI M 33 Bharatiya Janata Party

5 BIJ YOHANBHAI BHADIYABHAI M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party

6 RAJESH PRABHUBHAI PATEL M 38 Independent

7 MISHAL LAXMANBHAI NAVSUBHAI M 39 Independent

8 GAVIT BARAKBHAI JAURBHAI M 38 Independent

9 KHULAT BHIKALYABHAI VANSYABHAI M 40 Independent

S07 2 HR KURUKSHETRA 7-May-09 1 VISHNU BHAGWAN M 61 Independent

S07 6 HR SONIPAT 7-May-09 1 SHIV NARAYAN M 45 Independent

2 JITENDER SINGH M 40 Indian National Congress

3 JITENDER SINGH M 40 Indian National Congress

S19 10 PB FEROZPUR 7-May-09 1 MATHRA DASS M 73 Proutist Sarva Samaj

S19 11 PB BATHINDA 7-May-09 1 HARDEV SINGH ARSHI M 59 Communist Party of India

2 HARDEV SINGH ARSHI M 59 Communist Party of India

S19 12 PB SANGRUR 7-May-09 1 TARSEM JODHAN M 59 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)

S20 3 RJ CHURU 7-May-09 1 SALIM GUJAR M 39 Independent

2 RAM SINGH KASWAN M 63 Bharatiya Janata Party

3 KAMALA KASWAN F 63 Bharatiya Janata Party

4 YUSUF KHAN M 46 Independent

S20 15 RJ PALI 7-May-09 1 PUSP JAIN M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party

S20 18 RJ JALORE 7-May-09 1 SUKHRAJ M 66 Independent

2 SHANTI PARMAR F 48 Independent

S20 23 RJ BHILWARA 7-May-09 1 VIJAYENDRA PAL SINGH M 61 Bharatiya Janata Party

S24 15 UP ALIGARH 7-May-09 1 RAJ KUMARI CHAUHAN F 46 Bahujan Samaj Party

S24 17 UP MATHURA 7-May-09 1 UDYAN SHARMA M 42 Samajwadi Party

2 PHAKKAD BABA M 64 Independent

S24 40 UP FARRUKHABAD 7-May-09 1 SWAMI SACHIDANAND HARI SAKSHI M 53 Rashtriya Kranti Party

S24 42 UP KANNAUJ 7-May-09 1 MAHESH CHANDRA M 53 Bahujan Samaj Party

2 AKHILESH YADAV M 35 Samajwadi Party

S25 27 WB SRERAMPUR 7-May-09 1 KALYAN BANERJEE M 52 All India Trinamool Congress

A toast to each and all of you in your endeavours in these hot summer months and Jai Hind.

Subroto Roy, Kolkata

Postscript: I shall be grateful if any inadvertent errors or ommissions are kindly brought to notice by sending in a comment on the post. Thanks in advance.

Alfred Lyall on Christians, Muslims, India, China, Etc, 1908

April 6, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

“THE STATE IN ITS RELATION TO EASTERN AND WESTERN RELIGIONS”

By Sir Alfred Comyn Lyall (1835-1911)

Delivered as President of the Congress for the History of Religions, September 1908.—Fortnightly Review, November 1908.

“In considering the subject of my address, I have been confronted by this difficulty—that in the sections which regulate the order of our proceedings, we have a list of papers that range over all the principal religions, ancient and modern, that have existed and still exist in the world. They are to be treated and discussed by experts whose scholarship, particular studies, and close research entitle them all to address you authoritatively. I have no such special qualifications; and in any case it would be most presumptuous in me to trespass upon their ground. All that I can venture to do, therefore, in the remarks which I propose to address to you to-day, is to attempt a brief general survey of the history of religions from a standpoint which may possibly not fall within the scope of these separate papers.

The four great religions now prevailing in the world, which are historical in the sense that they have been long known to history, I take to be—Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Having regard to their origin and derivation, to their history and character, I may be permitted, for my present purpose only, to class the two former as the Religions of the West, and the two latter as the Religions of the East. These are the faiths which still maintain a mighty influence over the minds of mankind. And my object is to compare the political relations, the attitude, maintained toward them, from time to time, by the States and rulers of the people over which these religions have established their spiritual dominion.

The religion of the Jews is not included, though its influence has been incalculable, because it has been caught up, so to speak, into Christianity and Islam, and cannot therefore be counted among those which have made a partition of the religious world. For this reason, perhaps, it has retained to this day its ancient denomination, derived from the tribe or country of its origin; whereas the others are named from a Faith or a Founder. The word Nazarene, denoting the birthplace of Christianity, which is said to be still used in that region, was, as we know, very speedily superseded by its wider title, as the Creed broke out of local limits and was proclaimed universal. There has evidently been a foretime, though it is prehistorical, when, so far as we know, mankind was universally polytheistic; when innumerable rites and worships prevailed without restraint, springing up and contending with each other like the trees in a primeval forest, reflecting a primitive and precarious condition of human society.

I take polytheism to have been, in this earliest stage, the wild growth of superstitious imagination, varied indefinitely by the pressure of circumstance, by accident, by popular caprice, or by the good or evil fortunes of the community. In this stage it can now be seen among barbarous tribes—as, for instance, in Central Africa. And some traces of it still survive, under different pretexts and disguises, in the lowest strata of civilised nations, where it may be said to represent the natural reluctance of the vagrant human fancy to be satisfied with higher forms and purer conceptions that are always imperfectly assimilated by the multitude. Among primitive societies the spheres of human and divine affairs were intermixed and identical; they could not be disentangled. But with the growth of political institutions came gradual separation, or at any rate the subordination of religion to the practical necessities of orderly government and public morals.

That polytheism can exist and flourish in the midst of a highly intellectual and civilised society, we know from the history of Greece and Rome. But in ancient Greece its direct influence upon political affairs seems to have been slight; though it touched at some points upon morality. The function of the State, according to Greek ideas, was to legislate for all the departments of human life and to uphold the moral standard. The law prohibited sacrilege and profanity; it punished open impiety that might bring down divine wrath upon the people at large. The philosophers taught rational ethics; they regarded the popular superstitions with indulgent contempt; but they inculcated the duty of honouring the gods, and the observance of public ceremonial. Beyond these limits the practice of local and customary worship was, I think, free and unrestrained; though I need hardly add that toleration, as understood by the States of antiquity, was a very different thing from the modern principle of religious neutrality. Under the Roman government the connection between the State and religion was much closer, as the dominion of Rome expanded and its power became centralised. The Roman State maintained a strict control and superintendence over the official rituals and worships, which were regulated as a department of the administration, to bind the people together by established rites and worships, in order to cement political and social unity. It is true that the usages of the tribes and principalities that were conquered and annexed were left undisturbed; for the Roman policy, like that of the English in India, was to avoid giving offence to religion; and undoubtedly this policy, in both instances, materially facilitated the rapid building up of a wide dominion. Nevertheless, there was a tendency to draw in the worship toward a common centre. The deities of the conquered provinces were respected and conciliated; the Roman generals even appealed to them for protection and favour, yet they became absorbed and assimilated under Roman names; they were often identified with the gods of the Roman pantheon, and were frequently superseded by the victorious divinities of the new rulers—the strange deities, in fact, were Romanised as well as the foreign tribes and cities. After this manner the Roman empire combined the tolerance of great religious diversity with the supremacy of a centralised government. Political amalgamation brought about a fusion of divine attributes; and latterly the emperor was adored as the symbol of manifest power, ruler and pontiff; he was the visible image of supreme authority. This régime was easily accepted by the simple unsophisticated paganism of Europe. The Romans, with all their statecraft, had as yet no experience of a high religious temperature, of enthusiastic devotion and divine mysteries. But as their conquest and commerce spread eastward, the invasion of Asia let in upon Europe a flood of Oriental divinities, and thus Rome came into contact with much stronger and deeper spiritual forces. The European polytheism might be utilised and administered, the Asiatic deities could not be domesticated and subjected to regulation; the Oriental orgies and strange rites broke in upon the organised State worship; the new ideas and practices came backed by a profound and fervid spiritualism. Nevertheless the Roman policy of bringing religion under authoritative control was more or less successful even in the Asiatic provinces of the empire; the privileges of the temples were restricted; the priesthoods were placed under the general superintendence of the proconsular officials; and Roman divinities gradually found their way into the Asiatic pantheon. But we all know that the religion of the Roman empire was falling into multitudinous confusion when Christianity arose—an austere exclusive faith, with its army of saints, ascetics, and unflinching martyrs, proclaiming worship to be due to one God only, and sternly refusing to acknowledge the divinity of the emperor. Against such a faith an incoherent disorderly polytheism could make no better stand than tribal levies against a disciplined army. The new religion struck directly at the sacrifices that symbolised imperial unity; the passive resistance of Christians was necessarily treated as rebellion, the State made implacable war upon them. Yet the spiritual and moral forces won the victory, and Christianity established itself throughout the empire. Universal religion, following upon universal civil dominion, completed the levelling of local and national distinctions. The Churches rapidly grew into authority superior to the State within their own jurisdiction; they called in the temporal government to enforce theological decisions and to put down heresies; they founded a powerful hierarchy. The earlier Roman constitution had made religion an instrument of administration. When one religion became universal, the churches enlisted the civil ruler into the service of orthodoxy; they converted the State into an instrument for enforcing religion. The pagan empire had issued edicts against Christianity and had suppressed Christian assemblies as tainted with disaffection; the Christian emperors enacted laws against the rites and worships of paganism, and closed temples. It was by the supreme authority of Constantine that, for the first time in the religious history of the world, uniformity of belief was defined by a creed, and sanctioned by the ruler’s assent.

Then came, in Western Europe, the time when the empire at Rome was rent asunder by the inrush of barbarians; but upon its ruins was erected the great Catholic Church of the Papacy, which preserved in the ecclesiastical domain the autocratic imperial tradition. The primacy of the Roman Church, according to Harnack, is essentially the transference to her of Rome’s central position in the religions of the heathen world; the Church united the western races, disunited politically, under the common denomination of Christianity. Yet Christianity had not long established itself throughout all the lands, in Europe and Asia, which had once been under the Roman sovereignty, when the violent irruptions of Islam upset not only the temporal but also the spiritual dominion throughout Western Asia, and along the southern shores of the Mediterranean. The Eastern empire at Constantinople had been weakened by bitter theological dissensions and heresies among the Christians; the votaries of the new, simple, unswerving faith of Mohammed were ardent and unanimous.

In Egypt and Syria the Mohammedans were speedily victorious; the Latin Church and even the Latin language were swept out of North Africa. In Persia the Sassanian dynasty was overthrown, and although there was no immediate and total conversion of the people, Mohammedanism gradually superseded the ancient Zoroastrian cultus as the religion of the Persian State. It was not long before the armies of Islam had triumphed from the Atlantic coast to the Jaxartes river in Central Asia; and conversion followed, speedily or slowly, as the direct result of conquest. Moreover, the Mohammedans invaded Europe. In the south-west they subdued almost all Spain; and in the south-east they destroyed, some centuries later, the Greek empire, though not the Greek Church, and consolidated a mighty rulership at Constantinople. With this prolonged conflict between Islam and Christianity along the borderlands of Europe and Asia began the era of those religious wars that have darkened the history of the Western nations, and have perpetuated the inveterate antipathy between Asiatic and European races, which the spread of Christianity into both continents had softened and might have healed. In the end Christianity has fixed itself permanently in Europe, while Islam is strongly established throughout half Asia. But the sharp collision between the two faiths, the clash of armies bearing the cross and the crescent, generated fierce fanaticism on both sides. The Crusades kindled a fiery militant and missionary spirit previously unknown to religions, whereby religious propagation became the mainspring and declared object of conquest and colonisation.

Finally, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the great secession from the Roman Church divided the nations of Western Europe into hostile camps, and throughout the long wars of that period political jealousies and ambitions were inflamed by religious animosities. In Eastern Europe the Greek Church fell under almost complete subordination to the State. The history of Europe and Western Asia records, therefore, a close connection and community of interests between the States and the orthodox faiths; a combination which has had a very potent influence, during many centuries, upon the course of civil affairs, upon the fortunes, or misfortunes, of nations.

Up to the sixteenth century, at least, it was universally held, by Christianity and by Islam, that the State was bound to enforce orthodoxy; conversion and the suppression or expulsion of heretics were public duties. Unity of creed was thought necessary for national unity—a government could not undertake to maintain authority, or preserve the allegiance of its subjects, in a realm divided and distracted by sectarian controversies. On these principles Christianity and Islam were consolidated, in union with the States or in close alliance with them; and the geographical boundaries of these two faiths, and of their internal divisions respectively, have not materially changed up to the present day.

Let me now turn to the history of religion in those countries of further Asia, which were never reached by Greek or Roman conquest or civilisation, where the ancient forms of worship and conceptions of divinity, which existed before Christianity and Islam, still flourish. And here I shall only deal with the relations of the State to religion in India and China and their dependencies, because these vast and populous empires contain the two great religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, of purely Asiatic origin and character, which have assimilated to a large extent, and in a certain degree elevated, the indigenous polytheism, and which still exercise a mighty influence over the spiritual and moral condition of many millions. We know what a tremendous power religion has been in the wars and politics of the West. I submit that in Eastern Asia, beyond the pale of Islam, the history of religion has been very different. Religious wars—I mean wars caused by the conflict of militant faiths contending for superiority—were, I believe, unknown on any great scale to the ancient civilisations. It seems to me that until Islam invaded India the great religious movements and changes in that region had seldom or never been the consequence of, nor had been materially affected by, wars, conquests, or political revolutions. Throughout Europe and Mohammedan Asia the indigenous deities and their temples have disappeared centuries ago; they have been swept away by the forces of Church and State combined to exterminate them; they have all yielded to the lofty overruling ideal of monotheism.

But the tide of Mohammedanism reached its limit in India; the people, though conquered, were but partly converted, and eastward of India there have been no important Mohammedan rulerships. On this side of Asia, therefore, two great religions, Buddhism and Brahmanism, have held their ground from times far anterior to Christianity; they have retained the elastic comprehensive character of polytheism, purified and elevated by higher conceptions, developed by the persistent competition of diverse ideas and forms among the people, unrestrained by attempts of superior organised faiths to obliterate the lower and weaker species. In that region political despotism has prevailed immemorially; religious despotism, in the sense of the legal establishment of one faith or worship to the exclusion of all others, of uniformity imposed by coercion, of proselytism by persecution, is unknown to history: the governments have been absolute and personal; the religions have been popular and democratic. They have never been identified so closely with the ruling power as to share its fortunes, or to be used for the consolidation of successful conquest. Nor, on the other hand, has a ruler ever found it necessary, for the security of his throne, to conform to the religion of his subjects, and to abjure all others. The political maxim, that the sovereign and his subjects should be of one and the same religion, ‘Cujus regio ejus religio’, has never prevailed in this part of the world.

And although in India, the land of their common origin, Buddhism widely displaced and overlaid Brahmanism, while it was in its turn, after several centuries, overcome and ejected by a Brahmanic revival, yet I believe that history records no violent contests or collisions between them; nor do we know that the armed force of the State played any decisive part in these spiritual revolutions. I do not maintain that Buddhism has owed nothing to State influence. It represents certain doctrines of the ancient Indian theosophy, incarnate, as one might say, in the figure of a spiritual Master, the Indian prince, Sakya Gautama, who was the type and example of ascetic quietism; it embodies the idea of salvation, or emancipation attainable by man’s own efforts, without aid from priests or divinities. Buddhism is the earliest, by many centuries, of the faiths that claim descent from a personal founder. It emerges into authentic history with the empire of Asoka, who ruled over the greater part of India some 250 years before Christ, and its propagation over his realm and the countries adjacent is undoubtedly due to the influence, example, and authority of that devout monarch.

According to Mr. Vincent Smith, from whose valuable work on the Early History of India I take the description of Asoka’s religious policy, the king, renouncing after one necessary war all further military conquest, made it the business of his life to employ his autocratic power in directing the preaching and teaching of the Law of Piety, which he had learnt from his Buddhist priesthood. All his high officers were commanded to instruct the people in the way of salvation; he sent missions to foreign countries; he issued edicts promulgating ethical doctrines, and the rules of a devout life; he made pilgrimages to the sacred places; and finally he assumed the yellow robe of a Buddhist monk.

Asoka elevated, so Mr. Smith has said, a sect of Hinduism to the rank of a world-religion. Nevertheless, I think it may be affirmed that the emperor consistently refrained from the forcible conversion of his subjects, and indeed the use of compulsion would have apparently been a breach of his own edicts, which insist on the principle of toleration, and declare the propagation of the Law of Piety to be his sole object. Asoka made no attempt to persecute Brahmanism; and it seems clear that the extraordinary success of Buddhism in India cannot be attributed to war or to conquest. To imperial influence and example much must be ascribed, yet I think Buddhism owed much more to its spiritual potency, to its superior faculty of transmuting and assimilating, instead of abolishing, the elementary instincts and worships, endowing them with a higher significance, attracting and stimulating devotion by impressive rites and ceremonies, impressing upon the people the dogma of the soul’s transmigration and its escape from the miseries of sentient existence by the operation of merits. And of all great religions it is the least political, for the practice of asceticism and quietism, of monastic seclusion from the working world, is necessarily adverse to any active connection with mundane affairs.

I do not know that the mysterious disappearance of Buddhism from India can be accounted for by any great political revolution, like that which brought Islam into India. It seems to have vanished before the Mohammedans had gained any footing in the country.

Meanwhile Buddhism is said to have penetrated into the Chinese empire by the first century of the Christian era. Before that time the doctrines of Confucius and Laotze were the dominant philosophies; rather moral than religious, though ancestral worship and the propitiation of spirits were not disallowed, and were to a certain extent enjoined. Laotze, the apostle of Taoism, appears to have preached a kind of Stoicism—the observance of the order of Nature in searching for the right way of salvation, the abhorrence of vicious sensuality—and the cultivation of humility, self-sacrifice, and simplicity of life. He condemned altogether the use of force in the sphere of religion or morality; though he admitted that it might be necessary for the purposes of civil government. The system of Confucius inculcated justice, benevolence, self-control, obedience and loyalty to the sovereign—all the civic virtues; it was a moral code without a metaphysical background; the popular worships were tolerated, reverence for ancestors conduced to edification; the gods were to be honoured, though it was well to keep aloof from them; he disliked religious fervour, and of things beyond experience he had nothing to say.

Buddhism, with its contempt for temporal affairs, treating life as a mere burden, and the soul’s liberation from existence as the end and object of meditative devotion, must have imported a new and disturbing element into the utilitarian philosophies of ancient China. For many centuries Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are said to have contended for the patronage and recognition of the Chinese emperors. Buddhism was alternately persecuted and protected, expelled and restored by imperial decree. Priesthoods and monastic orders are institutions of which governments are naturally jealous; the monasteries were destroyed or rebuilt, sacerdotal orders and celibacy suppressed or encouraged by imperial decrees, according to the views and prepossessions of successive dynasties or emperors. Nevertheless the general policy of Chinese rulers and ministers seems not to have varied essentially. Their administrative principle was that religion must be prevented from interfering with affairs of State, that abuses and superstitious extravagances are not so much offences against orthodoxy as matters for the police, and as such must be put down by the secular arm. Upon this policy successive dynasties appear to have acted continuously up to the present day in China, where the relations of the State to religions are, I think, without parallel elsewhere in the modern world. One may find some resemblance to the attitude of the Roman emperors towards rites and worships among the population, in the Chinese emperor’s reverent observance and regulation of the rites and ceremonies performed by him as the religious chief and representative before Heaven of the great national interests. The deification of deceased emperors is a solemn rite ordained by proclamation. As the Ius sacrum, the body of rights and duties in the matter of religion, was regarded in Rome as a department of the Ius publicum, belonging to the fundamental constitution of the State, so in China the ritual code was incorporated into the statute books, and promulgated with imperial sanction. Now we know that in Rome the established ritual was legally prescribed, though otherwise strange deities and their worships were admitted indiscriminately. But the Chinese Government goes much further. It appears to regard all novel superstitions, and especially foreign worships, as the hotbed of sedition and disloyalty. Unlicensed deities and sects are put down by the police; magicians and sorcerers are arrested; and the peculiar Chinese practice of canonising deceased officials and paying sacrificial honours to local celebrities after death is strictly reserved by the Board of Ceremonies for imperial consideration and approval. The Censor, to whom any proposal of this kind must be entrusted, is admonished that he must satisfy himself by inquiry of its validity. An official who performs sacred rites in honour of a spirit or holy personage not recognised by the Ritual Code, was liable, under laws that may be still in force, to corporal punishment; and the adoration by private families of spirits whose worship is reserved for public ceremonial was a heinous offence. No such rigorous control over the multiplication of rites and deities has been instituted elsewhere. On the other hand, while in other countries the State has recognised no more than one established religion, the Chinese Government formally recognises three denominations. Buddhism has been sanctioned by various edicts and endowments, yet the State divinities belong to the Taoist pantheon, and their worship is regulated by public ordinances; while Confucianism represents official orthodoxy, and its precepts embody the latitudinarian spirit of the intellectual classes. We know that the Chinese people make use, so to speak, of all three religions indiscriminately, according to their individual whims, needs, or experience of results. So also a politic administration countenances these divisions and probably finds some interest in maintaining them. The morality of the people requires some religious sanction; and it is this element with which the State professes its chief concern. We are told on good authority that one of the functions of high officials is to deliver public lectures freely criticising and discouraging indolent monasticism and idolatry from the standpoint of rational ethics, as follies that are reluctantly tolerated. Yet the Government has never been able to keep down the fanatics, mystics, and heretical sects that are incessantly springing up in China, as elsewhere in Asia; though they are treated as pestilent rebels and law-breakers, to be exterminated by massacre and cruel punishments; and bloody repression of this kind has been the cause of serious insurrections. It is to be observed that all religious persecution is by the direct action of the State, not instigated or insisted upon by a powerful orthodox priesthood. But a despotic administration which undertakes to control and circumscribe all forms and manifestations of superstition in a vast polytheistic multitude of its subjects, is inevitably driven to repressive measures of the utmost severity. Neither Christianity nor Islam attempted to regulate polytheism, their mission was to exterminate it, and they succeeded mainly because in those countries the State was acting with the support and under the uncompromising pressure of a dominant church or faith. Some writers have noticed a certain degree of resemblance between the policy of the Roman empire and that of the Chinese empire toward religion. We may read in Gibbon that the Roman magistrates regarded the various modes of worship as equally useful, that sages and heroes were exalted to immortality and entitled to reverence and adoration, and that philosophic officials, viewing with indulgence the superstitions of the multitude, diligently practised the ceremonies of their fathers. So far, indeed, his description of the attitude of the State toward polytheism may be applicable to China; but although the Roman and Chinese emperors both assumed the rank of divinity, and were supreme in the department of worships, the Roman administration never attempted to regulate and restrain polytheism at large on the Chinese system. The religion of the Gentiles, said Hobbes, is a part of their policy; and it may be said that this is still the policy of Oriental monarchies, who admit no separation between the secular and the ecclesiastic jurisdiction. They would agree with Hobbes that temporal and spiritual government are but two words brought into the world to make men see double and mistake their lawful sovereign. But while in Mohammedan Asia the State upholds orthodox uniformity, in China and Japan the mainspring of all such administrative action is political expediency. It may be suggested that in the mind of these far-Eastern people religion has never been conceived as something quite apart from human experience and the affairs of the visible world; for Buddhism, with its metaphysical doctrines, is a foreign importation, corrupted and materialised in China and Japan. And we may observe that from among the Mongolian races, which have produced mighty conquerors and founded famous dynasties from Constantinople to Pekin, no mighty prophet, no profound spiritual teacher, has arisen. Yet in China, as throughout all the countries of the Asiatic mainland, an enthusiast may still gather together ardent proselytes, and fresh revelations may create among the people unrest that may ferment and become heated up to the degree of fanaticism, and explode against attempts made to suppress it. The Taeping insurrection, which devastated cities and provinces in China, and nearly overthrew the Manchu dynasty, is a striking example of the volcanic fires that underlie the surface of Asiatic societies. It was quenched in torrents of blood after lasting some ten years. And very recently there has been a determined revolt of the Lamas in Eastern Tibet, where the provincial administration is, as we know, sacerdotal.

The imperial troops are said to be crushing it with unrelenting severity. These are the perilous experiences of a philosophic Government that assumes charge and control over the religions of some three hundred millions of Asiatics.

I can only make a hasty reference to Japan. In that country the relations of the State to religions appear to have followed the Chinese model. Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, are impartially recognised. The emperor presides over official worship as high priest of his people; the liturgical ordinances are issued by imperial rescripts not differing in form from other public edicts. The dominant article of faith is the divinity of Japan and its emperor; and Shinto, the worship of the gods of nature, is understood to be patronised chiefly with the motive of preserving the national traditions. But in Japan the advance of modern science and enlightened scepticism may have diminished the importance of the religious department. Shinto, says a recent writer, still embodies the religion of the people; yet in 1877 a decree was issued declaring it to be no more than a convenient system of State ceremonial.[ The Development of Religion in Japan, G. W. Knox, 1907] And in 1889 an article of the constitution granted freedom of belief and worship to all Japanese subjects, without prejudice to peace, order, and loyalty.

In India the religious situation is quite different. I think it is without parallel elsewhere in the world. Here we are at the fountainhead of metaphysical theology, of ideas that have flowed eastward and westward across Asia. And here, also, we find every species of primitive polytheism, unlimited and multitudinous; we can survey a confused medley of divinities, of rites and worships incessantly varied by popular whim and fancy, by accidents, and by the pressure of changing circumstances. Hinduism permits any doctrine to be taught, any sort of theory to be held regarding the divine attributes and manifestations, the forces of nature, or the mysterious functions of mind or body. Its tenets have never been circumscribed by a creed; its free play has never been checked or regulated by State authority. Now, at first sight, this is not unlike the popular polytheism of the ancient world, before the triumph of Christianity. There are passages in St. Augustine’s Civitas Dei, describing the worship of the unconverted pagans among whom he lived, that might have been written yesterday by a Christian bishop in India. And we might ask why all this polytheism was not swept out from among such a highly intellectual people as the Indians, with their restless pursuit of divine knowledge, by some superior faith, by some central idea. Undoubtedly the material and moral conditions, and the course of events which combine to stamp a particular form of religion upon any great people, are complex and manifold; but into this inquiry I cannot go. I can only point out that the institution of caste has riveted down Hindu society into innumerable divisions upon a general religious basis, and that the sacred books separated the Hindu theologians into different schools, preventing uniformity of worship or of creed. And it is to be observed that these books are not historical; they give no account of the rise and spread of a faith. The Hindu theologian would say, in the words of an early Christian father, that the objects of divine knowledge are not historical, that they can only be apprehended intellectually, that within experience there is no reality. And the fact that Brahmanism has no authentic inspired narrative, that it is the only great religion not concentrated round the life and teachings of a person, may be one reason why it has remained diffuse and incoherent. All ways of salvation are still open to the Hindus; the canon of their scripture has never been authoritatively closed. New doctrines, new sects, fresh theological controversies, are incessantly modifying and superseding the old scholastic interpretations of the mysteries, for Hindus, like Asiatics everywhere, are still in that condition of mind when a fresh spiritual message is eagerly received. Vishnu and Siva are the realistic abstractions of the understanding from objects of sense, from observation of the destructive and reproductive operations of nature; they represent among educated men separate systems of worship which, again, are parted into different schools or theories regarding the proper ways and methods of attaining to spiritual emancipation. Yet the higher philosophy and the lower polytheism are not mutually antagonistic; on the contrary, they support each other; for Brahmanism accepts and allies itself with the popular forms of idolatry, treating them as outward visible signs of an inner truth, as indications of all-pervading pantheism. The peasant and the philosopher reverence the same deity, perform the same rite; they do not mean the same thing, but they do not quarrel on this account. Nevertheless, it is certainly remarkable that this inorganic medley of ideas and worships should have resisted for so many ages the invasion and influence of the coherent faiths that have won ascendancy, complete or dominant, on either side of India, the west and the east; it has thrown off Buddhism, it has withstood the triumphant advance of Islam, it has as yet been little affected by Christianity. Probably the political history of India may account in some degree for its religious disorganisation. I may propound the theory that no religion has obtained supremacy, or at any rate definite establishment, in any great country except with the active co-operation, by force or favour, of the rulers, whether by conquest, as in Western Asia, or by patronage and protection, as in China. The direct influence and recognition of the State has been an indispensable instrument of religious consolidation. But until the nineteenth century the whole of India, from the mountains to the sea, had never been united under one stable government; the country was for ages parcelled out into separate principalities, incessantly contending for territory. And even the Moghul empire, which was always at war upon its frontiers, never acquired universal dominion. The Moghul emperors, except Aurungzeb, were by no means bigoted Mohammedans; and their obvious interest was to abstain from meddling with Hinduism. Yet the irruption of Islam into India seems rather to have stimulated religious activity among the Hindus, for during the Mohammedan period various spiritual teachers arose, new sects were formed, and theological controversies divided the intellectual classes. To these movements the Mohammedan governments must have been for a long time indifferent; and among the new sects the principle of mutual toleration was universal. Towards the close of the Moghul empire, however, Hinduism, provoked by the bigotry of the Emperor Aurungzeb, became a serious element of political disturbance. Attempts to suppress forcibly the followers of Nanak Guru, and the execution of one spiritual leader of the Sikhs, turned the Sikhs from inoffensive quietists into fanatical warriors; and by the eighteenth century they were in open revolt against the empire. They were, I think, the most formidable embodiment of militant Hinduism known to Indian history. By that time, also, the Marathas in South-West India were declaring themselves the champions of the Hindu religion against the Mohammedan oppression; and to the Sikhs and Marathas the dislocation of the Moghul empire may be very largely attributed. We have here a notable example of the dynamic power upon politics of revolts that are generated by religious fermentation, and a proof of the strength that can be exerted by a pacific inorganic polytheism in self-defence, when ambitious rebels proclaim themselves defenders of a faith. The Marathas and the Sikhs founded the only rulerships whose armies could give the English serious trouble in the field during the nineteenth century. On the whole, however, when we survey the history of India, and compare it with that of Western Asia, we may say that although the Hindus are perhaps the most intensely religious people in the world, Hinduism has never been, like Christianity, Islam, and to some extent Buddhism, a religion established by the State. Nor has it suffered much from the State’s power. It seems strange, indeed, that Mohammedanism, a compact proselytising faith, closely united with the civil rulership, should have so slightly modified, during seven centuries of dominion, this infinitely divided polytheism. Of course, Mohammedanism made many converts, and annexed a considerable number of the population—yet the effect was rather to stiffen than to loosen the bonds that held the mass of the people to their traditional divinities, and to the institution of castes. Moreover the antagonism of the two religions, the popular and the dynastic, was a perpetual element of weakness in a Mohammedan empire. In India polytheism could not be crushed, as in Western Asia, by Islam; neither could it be controlled and administered, as in Eastern Asia; yet the Moghul emperors managed to keep on good terms with it, so long as they adhered to a policy of toleration. To the Mohammedan empire has succeeded another foreign dominion, which practises not merely tolerance but complete religious neutrality.

Looking back over the period of a hundred years, from 1757 to 1857, during which the British dominion was gradually extended over India, we find that the British empire, like the Roman, met with little or no opposition from religion. Hindus and Mohammedans, divided against each other, were equally willing to form alliances with, and to fight on the side of, the foreigner who kept religion entirely outside politics. And the British Government, when established, has so carefully avoided offence to caste or creed that on one great occasion only, the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, have the smouldering fires of credulous fanaticism broken out against our rule. I believe the British-Indian position of complete religious neutrality to be unique among Asiatic governments, and almost unknown in Europe. The Anglo-Indian sovereignty does not identify itself with the interests of a single faith, as in Mohammedan kingdoms, nor does it recognise a definite ecclesiastical jurisdiction in things spiritual, as in Catholic Europe. Still less has our Government adopted the Chinese system of placing the State at the head of different rituals for the purpose of controlling them all, and proclaiming an ethical code to be binding on all denominations. The British ruler, while avowedly Christian, ignores all religions administratively, interfering only to suppress barbarous or indecent practices when the advance of civilisation has rendered them obsolete. Public instruction, so far as the State is concerned, is entirely secular; the universal law is the only authorised guardian of morals; to expound moral duties officially, as things apart from religion, has been found possible in China, but not in India. But the Chinese Government can issue edicts enjoining public morality and rationalism because the State takes part in the authorised worship of the people, and the emperor assumes pontifical office. The British Government in India, on the other hand, disowns official connection with any religion. It places all its measures on the sole ground of reasonable expediency, of efficient administration; it seeks to promote industry and commerce, and material civilisation generally; it carefully avoids giving any religious colour whatever to its public acts; and the result is that our Government, notwithstanding its sincere professions of absolute neutrality, is sometimes suspected of regarding all religion with cynical indifference, possibly even with hostility. Moreover, religious neutrality, though it is right, just, and the only policy which the English in India could possibly adopt, has certain political disadvantages. The two most potent influences which still unite and divide the Asiatic peoples, are race and religion; a Government which represents both these forces, as, for instance, in Afghanistan, has deep roots in a country. A dynasty that can rely on the support of an organised religion, and stands forth as the champion of a dominant faith, has a powerful political power at its command. The Turkish empire, weak, ill-governed, repeatedly threatened with dismemberment, embarrassed internally by the conflict of races, has been preserved for the last hundred years by its incorporation with the faith of Islam, by the Sultan’s claim to the Caliphate. To attack it is to assault a religious citadel; it is the bulwark on the west of Mohammedan Asia, as Afghanistan is the frontier fortress of Islam on the east. A leading Turkish politician has very recently said: ‘It is in Islam pure and simple that lies the strength of Turkey as an independent State; and if the Sultan’s position as religious chief were encroached upon by constitutional reforms, the whole Ottoman empire would be in danger.’ We have to remember that for ages religious enthusiasm has been, and still is in some parts of Asia, one of the strongest incentives to military ardour and fidelity to a standard on the battlefield. Identity of creed has often proved more effective, in war, than territorial patriotism; it has surmounted racial and tribal antipathies; while religious antagonism is still in many countries a standing impediment to political consolidation. When, therefore, we survey the history of religions, though this sketch is necessarily very imperfect and inadequate, we find Mohammedanism still identified with the fortunes of Mohammedan rulers; and we know that for many centuries the relations of Christianity to European States have been very close. In Europe the ardent perseverance and intellectual superiority of great theologians, of ecclesiastical statesmen supported by autocratic rulers, have hardened and beat out into form doctrines and liturgies that it was at one time criminal to disregard or deny, dogmatic articles of faith that were enforced by law. By these processes orthodoxy emerged compact, sharply defined, irresistible, out of the strife and confusion of heresies; the early record of the churches has pages spotted with tears and stained with blood. But at the present time European States seem inclined to dissolve their alliance with the churches, and to arrange a kind of judicial separation between the altar and the throne, though in very few cases has a divorce been made absolute. No State, in civilised countries, now assists in the propagation of doctrine; and ecclesiastical influence is of very little service to a Government. The civil law, indeed, makes continual encroachments on the ecclesiastical domain, questions its authority, and usurps its jurisdiction. Modern erudition criticises the historical authenticity of the scriptures, philosophy tries to undermine the foundations of belief; the governments find small interest in propping up edifices that are shaken by internal controversies. In Mohammedan Asia, on the other hand, the connection between the orthodox faith and the States is firmly maintained, for the solidarity is so close that disruptions would be dangerous, and a Mohammedan rulership over a majority of unbelievers would still be perilously unstable. I have thus endeavoured to show that the historical relations of Buddhism and Hinduism to the State have been in the past, and are still in the present time, very different from the situation in the West. There has always existed, I submit, one essential distinction of principle. Religious propagation, forcible conversion, aided and abetted by the executive power of the State, and by laws against heresy or dissent, have been defended in the West by the doctors of Islam, and formerly by Christian theologians, by the axiom that all means are justifiable for extirpating false teachers who draw souls to perdition. The right and duty of the civil magistrate to maintain truth, in regard to which Bossuet declared all Christians to be unanimous, and which is still affirmed in the Litany of our Church, is a principle from which no Government, three centuries ago, dissented in theory, though in practice it needed cautious handling. I do not think that this principle ever found its way into Hinduism or Buddhism; I doubt, that is to say, whether the civil government was at any time called in to undertake or assist propagation of those religions as part of its duty. Nor do I know that the States of Eastern Asia, beyond the pale of Islam, claim or exercise the right of insisting on conformance to particular doctrines, because they are true. The erratic manifestations of the religious spirit throughout Asia, constantly breaking out in various forms and figures, in thaumaturgy, mystical inspiration, in orgies and secret societies, have always disquieted these Asiatic States, yet, so far as I can ascertain, the employment of force to repress them has always been justified on administrative or political grounds, as distinguishable from theological motives pure and simple. Sceptics and agnostics have been often marked out for persecution in the West, but I do not think that they have been molested in India, China, or Japan, where they abound, because they seldom meddle with politics.[ ‘Atheism did never disturb States’ (Bacon)]. It may perhaps be admitted, however, that a Government which undertakes to regulate impartially all rites and worship among its subjects is at a disadvantage by comparison with a Government that acts as the representative of a great church or an exclusive faith. It bears the sole undivided responsibility for measures of repression; it cannot allege divine command or even the obligation of punishing impiety for the public good. To conclude. In Asiatic States the superintendence of religious affairs is an integral attribute of the sovereignty, which no Government, except the English in India, has yet ventured to relinquish; and even in India this is not done without some risk, for religion and politics are still intermingled throughout the world; they act and react upon each other everywhere. They are still far from being disentangled in our own country, where the theory that a Government in its collective character must profess and even propagate some religion has not been very long obsolete. It was maintained seventy years ago by a great statesman who was already rising into prominence, by Mr. Gladstone. The text of Mr. Gladstone’s argument, in his book on the relations of the State with the Church, was Hooker’s saying, that the religious duty of kings is the weightiest part of their sovereignty; while Macaulay, in criticising this position, insisted that the main, if not the only, duty of a Government, to which all other objects must be subordinate, was the protection of persons and property. These two eminent politicians were, in fact, the champions of the ancient and the modern ideas of sovereignty; for the theory that a State is bound to propagate the religion that it professes was for many centuries the accepted theory of all Christian rulerships, though I think it now survives only in Mohammedan kingdoms. As the influence of religion in the sphere of politics declines, the State becomes naturally less concerned with the superintendence of religion; and the tendency of constitutional Governments seems to be towards abandoning it. The States that have completely dissolved connection with ecclesiastical institutions are the two great republics, the United States of America and France. We can discern at this moment a movement towards constitutional reforms in Mohammedan Asia, in Turkey, and Persia, and if they succeed it will be most interesting to observe the effect which liberal reforms will produce upon the relation of Mohammedan Governments with the dominant faith, and on which side the religious teachers will be arrayed. It is certain, at any rate, that for a long time to come religion will continue to be a potent factor in Asiatic politics; and I may add that the reconciliation of civil with religious liberty is one of the most arduous of the many problems to be solved by the promoters of national unity.”

Map of India, Afghanistan, Russia, China c. 1897

February 16, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

mapofindiaafghanistanrussiachinac18972

The “three-state solution” for the Middle East (and why has Tony Blair not resigned when Israel attacked Gaza?) 2009

January 13, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

A few thousand years ago, Moses (whom Freud identified as likely to have been a monotheistic Egyptian nobleman) led the Hebrews out of Egypt. A year ago, Hamas blew up the much-hated wall between the Gaza Strip and Egypt with explosives, after secretly over months cutting heavy metal using oxyacetylene torches. Some three hundred and fifty thousand Gazans poured into Egypt’s Rafah town and market to buy food, medicine, cigarettes, petrol, cows, goats, sheep, camel, televisions, mobile phones etc. Israel’s wicked blockade of Gaza was broken. Hosni Mubarak apparently instructed Egyptian border guards not to resist the Palestinian crowds from entering Egypt, and stated that as long as they returned without weapons they were free to trade as they wished. Egypt could hardly have done anything else – Cairo had seen pro-Palestinian demonstrations and Mubarak’s police had arrested some 500 members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The official Israeli response was “the free passage of Palestinians into Egypt and back, without any supervision, significantly increases the threat coming from the Strip”. The Israeli Foreign Ministry said “it is the responsibility of Egypt to ensure that the border operates properly, according to the signed agreements. We expect the Egyptians to solve the problem. Obviously we are worried about the situation. It could potentially allow anybody to enter.” But Egypt can hardly solve this problem other than by offering to extend Egyptian sovereignty to the whole of the Gaza Strip. Something similar would have to be done with the West Bank becoming absorbed officially into Jordan. The Palestinian people would then not have their own state after all but have been divided between the formal territories of Egypt, Jordan and of course Israel itself (is not Israel technically a secular country without a state religion?). Gaza and the West Bank could be autonomous regions within Egyptian and Jordanian sovereignty respectively. The Palestinians at least would be able to buy flour and have normal lives and not have been made to live in the open-air prison that they do now. The people of Gaza would have been spared the Israeli atrocity that has been going on in the last several weeks.

There are and have been uncountable quasi-nationalities who have not had their own nation-states. Kurds are divided between Turkey, Iraq and Iran; Baloch are divided between Iran and Pakistan; Pashtuns are divided between Afghanistan and Pakistan; Kashmiris (and for that matter Punjabis and Sindhis) are divided between Pakistan and India; Bengalis are divided between India and Bangladesh; Tamils are divided between India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Singapore; Tibetans are divided between India and China etc etc, and that is only in half of Asia. There are multitudinous cases all over Europe (and Britain), Africa and also the Americas and elsewhere. The Palestinians would have become one such. And like Poland being divided between Germany and Russia, or between Prussia, Austro-Hungary and Russia even earlier (on this see the inimitable Joseph Conrad Notes on Life and Letters), a people who have been divided without a separate identity can sometimes find themselves independent again as history progresses.

Islamic Iran has wished a “one-state” solution with the Palestinians and Israelis living together harmoniously, something that seems utopian at best, devious at worst — though recall too Martin Buber’s letter to Tagore. British foreign policy invented the “two-state” solution ever since the Balfour declaration. It has proved infeasible. Tony Blair became the so-called “Quartet envoy” or whatever immediately after being UK prime minister and was supposed to herald in the two-state solution. He palpably failed and should have resigned when Israel attacked Gaza last month but that may have been too much to expect. Israel today seems to want to impose the “zero-state” solution by extinguishing Gaza (though at one time, pre-PLO and pre-Arafat perhaps, Israel may have proposed itself the annexation of Gaza and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan respectively).

All things considered, the “three-state” solution may be the only practical and civilized alternative in the circumstances. Palestine would indeed be remembered, as a place and a culture and a people, and at least the Palestinians would be able to live and thrive and not be attacked.

Subroto Roy

How to solve Kashmir (2009)

January 7, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

see

https://independentindian.com/2015/03/03/pakistans-indias-illusions-of-power-psychosis-vs-vanity/

https://independentindian.com/2011/10/13/my-seventy-one-notes-at-facebook-etc-on-kashmir-pakistan-and-of-course-india-listed-thanks-to-jd/

Also

from Jan 2009
It is excellent news Omar Abdullah has become the constitutionally elected Head of Government of the great Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir after a historic vote. I had the privilege of meeting his esteemed father briefly once on 23 March 1991 at the residence of the late Rajiv Gandhi though it would be understandable if he did not recall it. Farooq Abdullah’s father Sheikh Abdullah was not merely a Lion of Kashmir but a genuine hero of Indian history, a true Bharat Ratna, someone whose commitment to constitutional principles of law and politics I admire more and more as I learn more of it…

The purpose of this open letter is to describe the broad path I believe to be the only just and lawful one available to the resolution of what has been known universally as the Kashmir problem.

Very briefly, it involves recognizing that the question of lawful territorial sovereignty in J&K is logically distinct from the question of the choice of nationality by individual inhabitants. The solution requires

(a) acknowledging that the original entity in the world system known as Jammu & Kashmir arising on March 16 1846 ceased to exist on or about October 22 1947, and that the military contest that commenced on the latter date has resulted in fact, given all particular circumstances of history, in the lawful and just outcome in international law;
(b) offering all who may be Indian nationals or stateless and who presently live under Article 370, a formal choice of nationality between the Republics of India, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan: citizen-by-citizen, without fear or favour, under conditions of full information, individual privacy and security; any persons who voluntarily choose to renounce Indian nationality in such private individual decisions would be nevertheless granted lawful permanent residence in the Indian Republic and J&K in particular.

In other words, the dismemberment of the original J&K State and annexation of its territories by the entities known today as the Republic of Pakistan and Republic of India that occurred since October 22 1947, as represented first by the 1949 Ceasefire Line and then by the 1972 Line of Control, is indeed the just and lawful outcome prevailing in respect of the question of territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction. The remaining democratic question has to do with free individual choice of nationality by inhabitants, under conditions of full information and privacy, citizen-by-citizen, with the grant of permanent residency rights by the Indian Republic to persons under its jurisdiction in J&K who might wish to choose, for deeply personal individual reasons, not to remain Indian nationals but become Afghan, Iranian or Pakistani nationals instead (or remain stateless). Pakistan has said frequently its sole concern has been the freedom of Muslims of J&K under Indian rule, and any such genuine concern shall have been thereby fully met by India. Indeed if Pakistan agreed to act similarly this entire complex mortal problem of decades shall have begun to be resolved most appropriately. Pakistan and India are both wracked by corruption, poverty and bad governance, and would be able to mutually draw down military forces pit against one another everywhere, so as to begin to repair the grave damage to their fiscal health caused over decades by the deleterious draining away of vast public resources.

The full reasoning underlying this solution, which I believe to be the only lawful, just, efficient and stable solution that exists, is thoroughly explained in the following five articles. The first four, “Solving Kashmir”, “Law, Justice & J&K”, “History of J&K”, and “Pakistan’s Allies”, were published in The Statesman in 2005-2006 and are marked ONE, TWO, THREE, and FOUR below, and are also available elsewhere here. The fifth “An Indian Reply to President Zardari”, marked FIVE, was published for the first time here following the Mumbai massacres. I believe careful reflection upon this entire body of reasoning may lead all reasonable men and women to a practically unanimous consensus about this as the appropriate course of action; if such a consensus happened to arise, the implementation of the solution shall only be a matter of relatively uncomplicated procedural detail.

Subroto Roy
January 7 2009

“ONE
SOLVING KASHMIR: ON AN APPLICATION OF REASON by Subroto Roy First published in three parts in The Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, December 1,2,3 2005, http://www.thestatesman.net

(This article has its origins in a paper “Towards an Economic Solution for Kashmir” which circulated in Washington DC in 1992-1995, including at the Indian and Pakistani embassies and the Carnegie Endowment, and was given as an invited lecture at the Heritage Foundation on June 23 1998. It should be read along with other articles also republished here, especially “History of J&K”, “Law, Justice and J&K” , “Understanding Pakistan”, “Pakistan’s Allies” and “What to Tell Musharraf”. The Washington paper and lecture itself originated from my ideas in the Introduction to Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy, edited by WE James and myself in the University of Hawaii project on Pakistan 1986-1992.)

I. Give Indian `Green Cards’ to the Hurriyat et al
India, being a liberal democracy in its constitutional law, cannot do in Jammu & Kashmir what Czechoslovakia did to the “Sudeten Germans” after World War II. On June 18 1945 the new Czechoslovakia announced those Germans and Magyars within their borders who could not prove they had been actively anti-fascist before or during the War would be expelled — the burden of proof was placed on the individual, not the State. Czechoslovakia “transferring” this population was approved by the Heads of the USA, UK and USSR Governments at Potsdam on August 2 1945. By the end of 1946, upto two million Sudeten Germans were forced to flee their homes; thousands may have died by massacre or otherwise; 165,000 remained who were absorbed as Czechoslovak citizens. Among those expelled were doubtless many who had supported Germany and many others who had not — the latter to this day seek justice or even an apology in vain. Czechoslovakia punished none of its nationals for atrocities, saying it had been revenge for Hitler’s evil (”badla” in Bollywood terms) and the post Cold War Czech Government too has declined to render an apology. Revenge is a wild kind of justice (while justice may be a civilised kind of revenge).

India cannot follow this savage precedent in international law. Yet we must recognise there are several hundred and up to several hundred thousand persons on our side of the boundary in the State of Jammu & Kashmir who do not wish to be Indian nationals. These people are presently our nationals ius soli, having been born in territory of the Indian Republic, and/or ius sanguinis, having been born of parents who are Indian nationals; or they may be “stateless” whom we must treat in accordance with the 1954 Convention on Stateless Persons. The fact is they may not wish to carry Indian passports or be Indian nationals.

In this respect their juridical persons resemble the few million “elite” Indians who have in the last few decades freely placed their hands on their hearts and solemnly renounced their Indian nationality, declaring instead their individual fidelity to other nation-states — becoming American, Canadian or Australian citizens, or British subjects or nationals of other countries. Such people include tens of thousands of the adult children of India’s metropolitan “elite”, who are annually visited abroad in the hot summer months by their Indian parents and relatives. They are daughters and sons of New Delhi’s Government and Opposition, of retired generals, air marshals, admirals, ambassadors, cabinet secretaries, public sector bureaucrats, private sector businessmen, university professors, journalists, doctors and many others. India’s most popular film-actress exemplified this “elite” capital-flight when, after a tireless search, she chose a foreign husband and moved to California.

The difference in Jammu & Kashmir would be that those wishing to renounce Indian nationality do not wish to move to any other place but to stay as and where they are, which is in Kashmir Valley or Jammu. Furthermore, they may wish, for whatever reason, to adopt, if they are eligible to do so, the nationality of e.g. the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan or the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

They may believe themselves descended from Ahmad Shah Abdali whose Afghans ruled or mis-ruled Kashmir Valley before being defeated by Ranjit Singh’s Sikhs in 1819. Or they may believe themselves of Iranian descent as, for example, are the Kashmiri cousins of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Or they may simply have wished to be, or are descended from persons who had wished to be on October 26 1947, citizens of the then-new British Dominion of Pakistan — but who came to be prevented from properly expressing such a desire because of the war-like conditions that have prevailed ever since between India and Pakistan. There may be even a few persons in Laddakh who are today Indian nationals but who wish to be considered Tibetans instead; there is, however, no Tibetan Republic and it does not appear there is going to be one.

India, being a free and self-confident country, should allow, in a systematic lawful manner, all such persons to fulfil their desires, and furthermore, should ensure they are not penalised for having expressed such “anti-national” desires or for having acted upon them. Sir Mark Tully, the British journalist, is an example of someone who has been a foreign national who has chosen to reside permanently in the Republic of India — indeed he has been an exemplary permanent resident of our country. There are many others like him. There is no logical reason why all those persons in Jammu & Kashmir who do wish not to be Indians by nationality cannot receive the same legal status from the Indian Republic as has been granted to Sir Mark Tully. There are already thousands of Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi and Nepalese nationals who are lawful permanent residents in the Indian Republic, and who travel back and forth between India and their home countries. There is no logical reason why the same could not be extended to several hundred or numerous thousand people in Jammu & Kashmir who may wish to not accept or to renounce their Indian nationality (for whatever personal reason) and instead become nationals, if they are so eligible, of the Islamic Republics of Afghanistan, Iran or Pakistan, or, for that matter, to remain stateless. On the one hand, their renunciation of Indian nationality is logically equivalent to the renunciation of Indian nationality by the adult children of India’s “elite” settled in North America and Western Europe. On the other hand, their wish to adopt, if they are eligible, a foreign nationality, such as that of Afghanistan, Iran or Pakistan, and yet remain domiciled in Indian territory is logically equivalent to that of many foreign nationals domiciled in India already like Sir Mark Tully.

Now if you are a permanent resident of some country, you may legally have many, perhaps most, but certainly not all the rights and duties of nationals of that country. e.g., though you will have to pay all the same taxes, you may not be allowed to (or be required to) vote in national or provincial elections but you may in local municipal elections. At the same time, permanently residing foreign nationals are supposed to be equal under the law and have equal access to all processes of civil and criminal justice. (As may be expected though from human frailty, even the federal courts of the USA can be notorious in their injustice and racism towards “Green Card” holders relative to “full” American citizens.) Then again, as a permanently resident foreigner, while you will be free to work in any lawful trade or profession, you may not be allowed to work in some or perhaps any Government agencies, certainly not the armed forces or the police. Many Indians in the USA were engineering graduates, and because many engineering jobs or contracts in the USA are related to the US armed forces and require US citizens only, it is commonplace for Indian engineers to renounce their Indian nationality and become Americans because of this. Many Indian-American families have one member who is American, another Indian, a third maybe Canadian, a fourth Fijian or British etc.

The same can happen in the Indian State of Jammu & Kashmir if it evolves peacefully and correctly in the future. It is quite possible to imagine a productive family in a peaceful Kashmir Valley of the future where one brother is an officer in the Indian Armed Forces, another brother a civil servant and a sister a police officer of the J&K State Government, another sister being a Pakistani doctor, while cousins are Afghan or Iranian or “stateless” businessmen. Each family-member would have made his/her choice of nationality as an individual given the circumstances of his/her life, his/her personal comprehension of the facts of history, his/her personal political and/or religious persuasions, and similar deeply private considerations. All would have their children going to Indian schools and being Indian citizens ius soli and/or ius sanguinis. When the children grow up, they would be free to join, if they wished, the existing capital flight of other Indian adult children abroad and there renounce their Indian nationality as many have come to do.

II Revealing Choices Privately with Full Information
For India to implement such a proposal would be to provide an opportunity for all those domiciled in Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Laddakh to express freely and privately as individuals their deepest wishes about their own identities, in a confidential manner, citizen by citizen, case by case. This would thereby solve the fundamental democratic problem that has been faced ever since the Pakistani attack on the original State of Jammu & Kashmir commenced on October 22 1947, which came to be followed by the Rape of Baramulla — causing the formal accession of the State to the then-new Dominion of India on October 26 1947.

A period of, say, 30 months may be announced by the Government of India during which full information would be provided to all citizens affected by this change, i.e. all those presently governed by Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. The condition of full information may include, for example, easy access to Afghan, Iranian and Pakistani newspapers in addition to access to Indian media. Each such person wishing to either remain with Indian nationality (by explicitly requesting an Indian passport if he/she does not have one already — and such passports can be printed in Kashmiri and Urdu too), or to renounce Indian nationality and either remain stateless or adopt, if he/she is so eligible, the nationality of e.g. Afghanistan, Iran, or Pakistan, should be administratively assisted by the Government of India to make that choice.

In particular, he/she should be individually, confidentially, and without fear or favour assured and informed of his/her new rights and responsibilities. For example, a resident of Kashmir Valley who chooses to become a Pakistani citizen, such as Mr Geelani, would now enjoy the same rights and responsibilities in the Indian Republic that Mr Tully enjoys, and at the same time no longer require a visa to visit Pakistan just as Mr Tully needs no visa to enter Britain. In case individual participants in the Hurriyat choose to renounce Indian nationality and adopt some other, they would no longer be able to legally participate in Indian national elections or J&K’s State elections. That is something which they say they do not wish to do in any case. Those members of the Hurriyat who chose e.g. Pakistani nationality while still residing in Jammu & Kashmir, would be free to send postal ballots or cross the border and vote in Pakistan’s elections if and when these occur. There are many Canadians who live permanently in the USA who cross home to Canada in order to cast a ballot.

After the period of 30 months, every person presently under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution would have received a full and fair opportunity to privately and confidentially reveal his/her preference or choice under conditions of full information. “Partition”, “Plebiscite”, and “Military Decision” have been the three alternatives under discussion ever since the National Conference of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and his then-loyal Deputy, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, helped the Indian Army and Air Force in 1947-1948 fight off the savage attack against Jammu & Kashmir State that had commenced from Pakistan on October 22 1947. When, during the Pakistani attack, the Sheikh and Bakshi agreed to the Muslim Conference’s demand for a plebiscite among the people, the Pakistanis balked — the Sheikh and Bakshi then withdrew their offer and decisively and irrevocably chose to accede to the Indian Union. The people of Jammu & Kashmir, like any other, are now bound by the sovereign political commitments made by their forebears. Even so, given the painful mortal facts of the several decades since, the solution here proposed if properly implemented would be an incomparably more thorough democratic exercise than any conceivable plebiscite could ever have been.

Furthermore, regardless of the outcome, it would not entail any further “Partition” or population “transfer” which inevitably would degenerate into a savage balkanization, and has been ruled out as an unacceptable “deal-breaker” by the Indian Republic. Instead, every individual person would have been required, in a private and confidential decision-making process, to have chosen a nationality or to remain stateless — resulting in a multitude of cosmopolitan families in Jammu & Kashmir. But that is something commonplace in the modern world. Properly understood and properly implemented, we shall have resolved the great mortal problem we have faced for more than half a century, and Jammu & Kashmir can finally settle into a period of peace and prosperity. The boundary between India and Pakistan would have been settled by the third alternative mentioned at the time, namely, “Military Decision”.

III. Of Flags and Consulates in Srinagar and Gilgit
Pakistan has demanded its flag fly in Srinagar. This too can happen though not in the way Pakistan has been wishing to see it happen. A Pakistan flag might fly in the Valley just as might an Afghan and Iranian flag as well. Pakistan has wished its flag to fly as the sovereign over Jammu & Kashmir. That is not possible. The best and most just outcome is for the Pakistani flag to fly over a recognised Pakistani consular or visa office in Srinagar, Jammu and Leh. In diplomatic exchange, the Indian tricolour would have to fly over a recognised Indian consular or visa office in Muzaffarabad, Gilgit and Skardu.

Pakistan also may have to act equivalently with respect to the original inhabitants of the territory of Jammu & Kashmir that it has been controlling — allowing those people to become Indian nationals if they so chose to do in free private decisions under conditions of full information. In other words, the “Military Decision” that defines the present boundary between sovereign states must be recognised by Pakistan sincerely and permanently in a Treaty relationship with India — and all of Pakistan’s official and unofficial protégés like the Hurriyat and the “United Jehad Council” would have to do the same. Without such a sovereign commitment from the Government of Pakistan, as shown by decisive actions of lack of aggressive intent (e.g. as came to be implemented between the USA and USSR), the Government of India has no need to involve the Government of Pakistan in implementing the solution of enhancing free individual choice of nationality with regard to all persons on our side of the boundary.

The “Military Decision” regarding the sovereign boundary in Jammu & Kashmir will be so recognised by all only if it is the universally just outcome in international law. And that in fact is what it is.

The original Jammu & Kashmir State began its existence as an entity in international law long before the present Republics of India and Pakistan ever did. Pakistan commences as an entity on August 14 1947; India commences as an entity of international law with its signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 20 1918. Jammu & Kashmir began as an entity on March 16 1846 — when the Treaty of Amritsar was signed between Gulab Singh Dogra and the British, one week after the Treaty of Lahore between the British and the defeated Sikh regency of the child Daleep Singh.

Liaquat Ali Khan and Zafrullah Khan both formally challenged on Pakistan’s behalf the legitimacy of Dogra rule in Jammu & Kashmir since the Treaty of Amritsar. The Pakistani Mission to the UN does so even today. The Pakistanis were following Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru himself, who too had at one point challenged Dogra legitimacy in the past. But though the form of words of the Pakistan Government and the Nehru-Abdullah position were similar in their attacks on the Treaty of Amritsar, their underlying substantive reasons were as different as chalk from cheese. The Pakistanis attacked the Dogra dynasty for being Dogra — i.e. because they were Hindus and not Muslims governing a Muslim majority. Nehru and Abdullah denounced monarchic autocracy in favour of mass democracy, and so attacked the Dogra dynasty for being a dynasty. All were wrong to think the Treaty of Amritsar anything but a lawful treaty in international law.

Furthermore, in this sombre political game of great mortal consequence, there were also two other parties who were, or appeared to be, in favour of the dynasty: one because the dynasty was non-Muslim, the other, despite it being so. Non-Muslim minorities like many Hindus and Sikhs in the business and governmental classes, saw the Dogra dynasty as their protector against a feared communalist tyranny arising from the Sunni Muslim masses of Srinagar Valley, whom Abdullah’s rhetoric at Friday prayer-meetings had been inciting or at least awakening from slumber. At the same time, the communalists of the Muslim Conference who had broken away from Abdullah’s secular National Conference, sought political advantage over Abdullah by declaring themselves in favour of keeping the dynasty — even elevating it to become an international sovereign, thus flattering the already pretentious potentate that he would be called “His Majesty” instead of merely “His Highness”. The ancestry of today’s Hurriyat’s demands for an independent Jammu & Kashmir may be traced precisely to those May 21-22 1947 declarations of the Muslim Conference leader, Hamidullah Khan.

Into this game stumbled the British with all the mix of cunning, indifference, good will, impatience, arrogance and pomposity that marked their rule in India. At the behest of the so-called “Native Princes”, the 1929 Butler Commission had hinted that the relationship of “Indian India” to the British sovereign was conceptually different from that of “British India” to the British sovereign. This view was adopted in the Cabinet Mission’s 12 May 1946 Memorandum which in turn came to be applied by Attlee and Mountbatten in their unseemly rush to “Divide and Quit” India in the summer of 1947.

It created the pure legal illusion that there was such a thing as “Lapse of Paramountcy” at which Jammu & Kashmir or any other “Native State” of “Indian India” could conceivably, even for a moment, become a sovereign enjoying the comity of nations — contradicting Britain’s own position that only two Dominions, India and Pakistan, could ever be members of the British Commonwealth and hence members of the newly created UN. British pusillanimity towards Jammu & Kashmir’s Ruler had even extended to making him a nominal member of Churchill’s War Cabinet because he had sent troops to fight in Burma. But the legal illusion had come about because of a catastrophic misunderstanding on the part of the British of their own constitutional law.

The only legal scholar who saw this was B R Ambedkar in a lonely and brilliant technical analysis released to the press on June 17 1947. No “Lapse of Paramountcy” over the “Native Princes” of Indian India could occur in constitutional law. Paramountcy over Indian India would be automatically inherited by the successor state of British India at the Transfer of Power. That successor state was the new British Dominion of India as well as (when it came to be finalised by Partition from India) the new British Dominion of Pakistan (Postscript: the deleted words represent a mistake made in the original paper, corrected in “Law, Justice & J&K” in view of the fact the UN in 1947 deemed India alone the successor state of British India and Pakistan a new state in the world system). A former “Native Prince” could only choose to which Dominion he would go. No other alternative existed even for a single logical moment. Because the British had catastrophically failed to comprehend this aspect of their own constitutional law, they created a legal vacuum whereby between August 15 and October 22-26 1947, Jammu & Kashmir became a local and temporary sovereign recognised only by the Dominion of Pakistan (until October 22) and the Dominion of India (until October 26). But it was not a globally recognised sovereign and was never going to be such in international law. This was further proved by Attlee refusing to answer the J&K Prime Minister’s October 18 1947 telegram.

All ambiguity came to end with the Pakistani attack of October 22 1947, the Rape of Baramulla, the secession of an “Azad Kashmir”declared by Sardar Ibrahim, and the Pakistani coup détat in Gilgit on October 31 1947 followed by the massacre of Sikh soldiers of the J&K Army at Bunji. With those Pakistani actions, Gulab Singh’s Jammu & Kashmir State, founded on March 16 1846 by the Treaty of Amritsar, ceased to logically exist as an entity in international law and fell into a state of ownerless anarchy. The conflict between Ibrahim’s Muslim communalists backed by the new Dominion of Pakistan and Abdullah’s secularists backed by the new Dominion of India had become a civil war within a larger intra-Commonwealth war that itself was almost a civil war between forces of the same military.

Jammu & Kashmir territory had become ownerless. The Roman Law which is at the root of all municipal and international law in the world today would declare that in the ownership of such an ownerless entity, a “Military Decision” was indeed the just outcome. Sovereignty over the land, waters, forests and other actual and potential resources of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir has become divided by “Military Decision” between the modern Republics of India and Pakistan. By the proposal made herein, the people and their descendants shall have chosen their nationality and their domicile freely across the sovereign boundary that has come to result.

TWO
LAW, JUSTICE AND J&K by Subroto Roy First published in two parts in The Sunday Statesman, July 2 2006 and The Statesman July 3 2006 http://www.thestatesman.net Editorial Page Special Article

I.
For a solution to J&K to be universally acceptable it must be seen by all as being lawful and just. Political opinion in Pakistan and India as well as all people and parties in J&K ~ those loyal to India, those loyal to Pakistan, and any others ~ will have to agree that, all things considered, such is the right course of action for everyone today in the 21st Century, which means too that the solution must be consistent with the facts of history as well as account reasonably for all moral considerations.

On August 14, 1947, the legal entity known as “British India”, as one of its final acts, and based on a sovereign British decision made only two months earlier, created out of some of its territory a new State defined in international law as the “Dominion of Pakistan”. British India extinguished itself the very next day, and the newly independent “Dominion of India” succeeded to all its rights and obligations in international law. As the legal successor of the “India” which had signed the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the San Francisco Declaration of 1945, the Dominion of India was already a member of the new UN as well as a signatory to many international treaties. By contrast, the Dominion of Pakistan had to apply afresh to sign treaties and become a member of international organisations. The theory put forward by Argentina that two new States, India and Pakistan, had been created ab initio, came to be rejected and was withdrawn by Argentina. Instead, Pakistan with the wholehearted backing of India was made a member of the UN, with all except Afghanistan voting in favour. (Afghanistan’s exceptional vote signalled presence of conflict over the Durand Line and idea of a Pashtunistan; Dr Khan Sahib and Abdul Ghaffar Khan were imprisoned by the Muslim League regime of NWFP which later supported the tribesmen who attacked J&K starting October 22, 1947; that conflict remains unresolved to this day, even after the American attack on the Taliban, the restart of a constitutional process in Afghanistan, and the purported mediation of US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.)

Zafrullah Khan, Pakistan’s distinguished first ambassador to the UN, claimed in September 1947: “Pakistan is not a new member of UNO but a successor to a member State which was one of the founders of the Organisation.” He noted that he himself had led India to the final session of the League of Nations in Geneva in 1939, and he wished to say that Pakistan had been present “as part of India… under the latter name” as a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles. This was, however, logically impossible. The Treaty of Versailles long predated (1) Mohammad Iqbal’s Allahabad Address which conceptualised for the first time in the 20th Century a Muslim State in Northwest India; (2) Rahmat Ali’s invention of the word “PAKSTAN” on the top floor of a London omnibus; (3) M. A. Jinnah and Fazlul Haq’s Lahore Resolution; and (4) the final British decision of June 3, 1947 to create by Partition out of “British India” a Dominion named Pakistan. Pakistan could not have acted in international law prior to having come into being or been created or even conceived itself. Zafrullah Khan would have been more accurate to say that the history of Pakistanis until August 14, 1947 had been one in common with that of their Indian cousins ~ or indeed their Indian brothers, since innumerable North Indian Muslim families came to be literally partitioned, with some brothers remaining Indians while other brothers became Pakistanis.

Pakistan was created at the behest of Jinnah’s Muslim League though with eventual agreement of the Indian National Congress (a distant ancestor of the political party going by the same name today). Pakistan arose not because Jinnah said Hindus and Muslims were “two nations” but because he and his League wished for a State where Muslims would find themselves ruled by fellow-Muslims and feel themselves part of a pan-Islamic culture. Yet Pakistan was intended to be a secular polity with Muslim-majority governance, not an Islamic theocracy. That Pakistan failed to become secular was exemplified most poignantly in the persecution Zafrullah himself later faced in his personal life as an Ahmadiya, even while he was Pakistan’s Foreign Minister. (The same happened later to Pakistan’s Nobel-winning physicist Abdus Salaam.) Pakistan was supposed to allow the genius of Indo-Muslim culture to flourish, transplanted from places like Lucknow and Aligarh which would never be part of it. In fact, the areas that are Pakistan today had in the 1937 provincial elections shown scant popular Muslim support for Jinnah’s League. The NWFP had a Congress Government in the 1946 elections, and its supporters boycotted the pro-Pakistan referendum in 1947. The imposition of Urdu culture as Pakistan’s dominant ethos might have come to be accepted later in West Punjab, Sindh and NWFP but it was not acceptable in East Bengal, and led inevitably to the Pakistani civil war and creation of Bangladesh by Sheikh Mujib in 1971.

In August 1947, the new Dominions of India and Pakistan were each supposed to protect their respective minority populations as their first political duty. Yet both palpably failed in this, and were reduced to making joint declarations pleading for peace and an end to communal killings and the abduction of women. The Karachi Government, lacking the wherewithal and administrative machinery of being a nation-state at all, and with only Liaquat and an ailing Jinnah as noted leaders, may have failed more conspicuously, and West Punjab, the Frontier and Sindh were soon emptied of almost all their many Sikhs and Hindus. Instead, the first act of the new Pakistan Government in the weeks after August 14, 1947 was to arrange for the speedy and safe transfer of the North Indian Muslim elite by air from Delhi using chartered British aeroplanes. The ordinary Muslim masses of UP, Delhi and East Punjab were left in danger from or were subjected to Sikh and Hindu mob attacks, especially as news and rumours spread of similar outrages against Pakistan’s departing minorities.

In this spiral of revenge attacks and counter-attacks, bloodshed inevitably spilled over from West and East Punjab into the northern Punjabi plains of Jammu, though Kashmir Valley remained conspicuously peaceful. Zafrullah and Liaquat would later claim it was this communal civil war which had caused thousands of newly decommissioned Mirpuri soldiers of the British Army, and thousands of Afridi and other Frontier tribesmen, to spontaneously act to “liberate” J&K’s Muslims from alleged tyranny under the Hindu Ruler or an allegedly illegal Indian occupation.

But the main attack on J&K State that began from Pakistan along the Manshera-Muzaffarabad road on October 22, 1947 was admittedly far too well-organised, well-armed, well-planned and well-executed to have been merely a spontaneous uprising of tribesmen and former soldiers. In all but name, it was an act of undeclared war of the new Dominion of Pakistan first upon the State of J&K and then upon the Indian Dominion. This became obvious to Field Marshall Auchinlek, who, as Supreme Commander of the armed forces of both India and Pakistan, promptly resigned and abolished the Supreme Command in face of the fact that two parts of his own forces were now at war with one another.

The invaders failed to take Srinagar solely because they lost their military purpose while indulging in the Rape of Baramula. Thousands of Kashmiri women of all communities ~ Muslim, Sikh and Hindu ~ were violated and transported back to be sold in markets in Peshawar and elsewhere. Such was standard practice in Central Asian tribal wars from long before the advent of Islam, and the invading tribesmen shared that culture. India’s Army and Air Force along with the militias of the secular democratic movement led by Sheikh Abdullah and those remaining loyal units of J&K forces, fought off the invasion, and liberated Baramula, Naushera, Uri, Poonch etc. Gilgit had a British-led coup détat against it bringing it under Pakistan’s control. Kargil was initially taken by the Pakistanis and then lost by them. Leh could have been but was not taken by Pakistani forces. But in seeking to protect Leh and to retake Kargil, the Indian Army lost the siege of Skardu ~ which ended reputedly with the infamous communication from the Pakistani commander to his HQ: “All Sikhs killed; all women raped.”

Legal theory
Now, in this grave mortal conflict, the legal theory to which both the Indian and Pakistani Governments have been wedded for sixty years is one that had been endorsed by the British Cabinet Mission in 1946 and originated with the Butler Commission of 1929. Namely, that “Lapse of Paramountcy” over the “Indian India” of the “Native States” could and did occur with the extinction of British India on August 15, 1947. By this theory, Hyderabad, J&K, Junagadh and the several other States which had not acceded to either Dominion were no longer subject to the Crown’s suzerainty as of that date. Both Dominions drew up “Instruments of Accession” for Rulers to sign upo

Independent Indian: Work & Life of Professor Subroto Roy

Bibliography, Books, Public Lectures, Memoranda, Memoirs

Some Recent Work

My Recent Tweets

drsubrotoroy

Index of Names and Subjects

Pakistan’s & India’s Illusions of Power (Psychosis vs Vanity)

Now Pakistan is said to have some 110 nuclear warheads, mostly in a disassembled state but with a few on fighter-jets in hidden air-bases in Balochistan (made by the USA decades ago) always at the ready, waiting for that Indian attack that will never come. It may all have been psychotic delusion.

India has never initiated hostilities against Pakistan. Not once. Not in 1947, 1965, 1971, 1999, 2008.

On our Indian side, the Indian military has been allowed a budgetary carte blanche for decades, especially with foreign exchange resources. (Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on 28 February 2015 has allocated some 2,467 billion INR to the military.)

Despite our vast spending, a band of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba terrorists tyrannized Mumbai for days on end while we seem perpetually without strategy against the People’s Republic of China’s recurrent provocations.

Yet we are hardly a trading or monetary superpower. We have large current account and budgetary deficits, and we are essentially buying whatever weapons, aircraft, shopping malls etc. that we do on foreign credit that we may or may not have. (Pakistan does the same.)

The way forward for both Pakistan and India is to seek to break the impasse between ourselves.

I have argued at length in previous publications that the *de facto* boundary that was the Ceasefire Line in 1949, and was later renamed the Line of Control in 1972, is indeed also the *de jure* boundary between India and Pakistan.

Jammu & Kashmir came into existence as a legal entity on 16 March 1846 under the Dogra Gulab Singh, friend of the British during the Sikh wars, and a protégé earlier of the great Sikh Ranjit Singh.

The *de facto* boundary over ownerless territory divided by military force is the *de jure* boundary in the Roman law that underlies all international law. Once both sides recognize that properly, we may proceed to the next stages.

The militaries and potentially powerful economies on both sides could then proceed towards real strength and cooperation, having dispelled their current illusions of power.

Pakistan’s Point of View (Or Points of View) on Kashmir: My As Yet Undelivered Lahore Lecture–Part I

Preface

27 April 2015 from Twitter: “My Pakistani hosts never managed to go thru w their 2010/11 invitation I speak in Lahore on Kashmir. After ‪#‎SabeenMahmud‬ s murder, I decline”

see too https://independentindian.com/2011/10/13/my-seventy-one-notes-at-facebook-etc-on-kashmir-pakistan-and-of-course-india-listed-thanks-to-jd/

On the Alternative Theories of Pakistan and India about Jammu & Kashmir (And the One and Only Way These May Be Peacefully Reconciled): An Exercise in Economics, Politics, Moral Philosophy & Jurisprudence

by

Subroto (Suby) Roy

Lecture to the Oxford and Cambridge Society of Lahore

March 14, 2011 (tentative)

“What is the use of studying philosophy if all that does for you is to enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc., & if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life?” Wittgenstein, letter to Malcolm, 1944

“India is the greatest Muslim country in the world.”

Sir Muhammad Iqbal, 1930, Presidential Address to the Muslim League, Allahabad

“Where be these enemies?… See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate,… all are punish’d.” Shakespeare

CONTENTS

Part I

Introduction

Pakistan’s Point of View (or Points of View)

(a) 1930 Sir Muhammad Iqbal

(b) 1933-1948 Chaudhury Rahmat Ali

(c) 1937-1941 Sir Sikander Hayat Khan

(d) 1937-1947 Quad-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah

(e) 1940s et seq Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi

(f) 1947-1950 Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, 1966 President Ayub Khan, 2005 Govt of Pakistan, 2007 President Musharraf, 2008 FM Qureshi, 2011 Kashmir Day

Part II

India’s Point of View: British Negligence/Indifference during the Transfer of Power, A Case of Misgovernance in the Chaotic Aftermath of World War II

(a) Rhetoric: Whose Pakistan? Which Kashmir?

Politics: What is to be Done? Towards Truths, Normalisation, Peace in the 21st Century

Appendices:

(a) History of Jammu & Kashmir until the Dogra Native State

(b) Pakistan’s Allies (including A Brief History of Gilgit)

(c) India’s Muslim Voices

(d) Pakistan’s Muslim Voices: An Excerpt from the Munir Report

Part I

1. Introduction

Before I start, allow me for a moment to remind just how complex and intractable the problem we face has been, and, therefore, quite how large my ambition is in claiming today to be able to resolve it.

“Kashmir is in the Supreme National Interest of Pakistan”, says Pakistan.

“Kashmir is an Integral Part of India”, says India.

“Kashmir is an Integral Part of Pakistan”, says Pakistan.

“Kashmir is in the Supreme National Interest of India”, says India.

2. Pakistan’s Point of View (Or Points of View)

1930 Sir Muhammad Iqbal

He did not see such a consolidated Muslim state being theocratic and certainly not one filled with bigotry or “Hate-Hindu” campaigns:

Secondly, this audience will see better than I can the significance of Dr Iqbal’s saying the Muslim political state of his conception needed

“an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian Imperialism was forced to give it”

and instead seek to

“mobilise its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and the spirit of modern times”.

Dr Iqbal’s Pakistan Principle appears here the polar opposite of Pakistan’s 18th & 19th Century pre-history represented by Shah Waliullah (1703-1762)[2] saying

“We are an Arab people whose fathers have fallen in exile in the country of Hindustan, and Arabic genealogy and Arabic language are our pride”

or Sayyid Ahmed Barelwi (1786-1831) saying

“We must repudiate all those Indian, Persian and Roman customs which are contrary to the Prophet’s teaching”.[3]

Some 25 years after the Allahabad address, the Munir Report in 1954 echoed Dr Iqbal’s thought when it observed about medieval military conquests

1933-1947 Chaudhury Rahmat Ali

1937-1941 Sir Sikander Hayat Khan

Intervention (Malik Barkat Ali): The Lahore resolution says the same thing.

Premier: Exactly; then why misinterpret it and try to mislead the masses?…”

I have argued at length in previous publications that the de facto boundary that was the Ceasefire Line in 1949, and was later renamed the Line of Control in 1972, is indeed also the de jure boundary between India and Pakistan.

The de facto boundary over ownerless territory divided by military force is the de jure boundary in the Roman law that underlies all international law. Once both sides recognize that properly, we may proceed to the next stages.

Politics: What is to be Done? Towards Truths, Normalisation, Peace in the 21^st Century

Dr Iqbal’s Pakistan Principle appears here the polar opposite of Pakistan’s 18^th & 19^th Century pre-history represented by Shah Waliullah (1703-1762)[2] saying