Secret report on India-Chin​a war in 1962 made public

CHENNAI: A section of the confidential Henderson Brooks report that critically reviewed India’s defence preparedness and strategies during the 1962 war with China has been released online by Australian journalist Neville Maxwell.

While the report may not contain significantly new revelations about the poor state of India’s forces during the war, it discusses “how the Army was ordered to challenge the Chinese military to a conflict it could only lose,” according to Maxwell, a retired foreign correspondent who was based in Delhi at the time of the war.

Invitation to join “Worldwide initiative on Ramayana”

Worldwide initiative

to read original Valmiki Ramayana sloka by sloka

starting from Sri Rama Navami day

* * * * *

How does it work ?
1.Sign up today, on the website http://www.readramayana.org with your emailid.
2.Receive one or two Sargas (20 to 60 slokas) every week in email starting from Sri Rama Navami Day, April 8, 2014.
3.The email will contain original Slokas in the script of your choice and meaning in simple English. Scroll down to the bottom of this email for a sample.
4.Read the slokas/meaning on your laptop, tablet or smart phone at your convenience.

The War of Words: Wikileaks vs Narendra Modi

A war of words has broken out in the media after a co-convener of the Maharashtra BJP communication cell tweeted an endorsement of his incorruptibility by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The Congress challenged the claim and on Monday the whistleblower website called the endorsement a fake. Wikileaks has since then released a number of tweets on the subject, even alleging that the BJP was using the fake quotation to raise funds; leading English and Hindi newspapers have taken the controversy further into the public domain. None of this does any good to the BJP or its Prime Ministerial candidate and the party needs to seriously control such acts of misplaced enthusiasm that do more harm than good.

Swami Vivekananda : Life and Teachings

Swami Vivekananda, known in his pre-monastic life asNarendranath Datta, was born in an affluent family inKolkata on 12 January 1863. His father, Vishwanath Datta, was a successful attorney with interests in a wide range of subjects, and his mother,Bhuvaneshwari Devi, was endowed with deep devotion, strong character and other qualities.

A precocious boy, Narendra excelled in music, gymnastics and studies. By the time he graduated from Calcutta University, he had acquired a vast knowledge of different subjects, especially Western philosophy and history. Born with a yogic temperament, he used to practise meditation even from his boyhood, and was associated with Brahmo Movement for some time.

THE HISTORY OF THE INDIAN FLAG (fw)

The flag that was first hoisted on August 7, 1906,
at the Parsee Bagan Square in Calcutta .

Called the ‘Saptarishi Flag’, this was hoisted in Stuttgart
at the International Socialist Congress held on August 22, 1907.

Associated with the names of Dr. Annie Besant and
Lokmanya Tilak, this flag was hoisted at
the Congress session in Calcutta during the
‘Home Rule Movement’.

Birth of Kashmir

Ancient epics narrate that the valley of Kashmir was originally a great
lake called – Satisar.

*Rishi Kashyap*

Rishi Kashyap through rigorous penance, drained all the lake water and
created number of rivulets which merged with rivers like Jehlum and Indus.

He made this area worthy of habitation for people.  *Therefore Kashmir gets
its name from Kashyap** .*

*Through Tapasya Kashyap invited Lord Shiva to Bless the place*.

Lord Shiva came to bless. The place where Lord Shiva came is known as
Amarnath .It is believed that God Shiva  dwells in a cave here even today in
 the form of ice lingam.

Amarnath is 145 km north of Srinagar . Millions of Hindu pilgrims come here
every year.

*Rulers of Kashmir*

Son of Kashyap – Neel, became the first ruler of Kashmir.

Later Kashmir was ruled by the Maurya (322 -185 BCE) and Kushan( 100 AD )
Empires.

Kashmir remained under Hindu rule for centuries.

Islam arrived around 1200 AD through traders and missionaries.

In 1327 A.D , Rinchen Shah the Hindu ruler of Kashmir was persuaded to
convert to Islam by Abdur Rehman Bulbul who came from central Asia .

The last Hindu king, Udiana Deva was replaced in 1346 by the first Muslim
sultan – Shams-ud-Din Iltutmush who  was from a noble family of the Ilbari
Turks of  East Turkestan.

Muslim invaders, including the Afghans and Mughals ruled Kashmir for 4
centuries .

 *Shams-ud-Din Iltutmush*

Brothers of Iltutmush had sold him ,when young to a slave dealer. After
being sold and purchased a few times, Iltutmush was
finally bought by Qutub Ud- Din Aibak – the then ruler of Delhi .

Aibak was the 1st Turkish Sultan of the Slave dynasty in
India<http://www.indianetzone.com/4/slave_dynasty.htm>. Aibak,
realized the potential of Shams-ud-Din Iltutmush  and
treated him with kindness . Aibak married his own daughter to
Iltutmush. Aibak’s son, Aram Shah,was found to be incompetent .
Hence after Qutub Ud- Din Aibak , Iltutmush became the Sultan of
Delhi. Iltutmush constructed the masterpieces like Qutub Minar,and a mosque
at Ajmer.
Both are considered architectural wonders.

Iltutmush, died in April 1236, after ruling for 26 years. Change of rule
took place when Moghul emperor Akbar conquered Kashmir in 1586 .

Durrani Empire (1747-1823) with its capital at Kandahar, defeated the
decaying Mughal
Empire<http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/india/xmughalempire.html>’s
rule in Kashmir
and Ahmed Shah Durrani ruled Kashmir from  1757  till 1819.

*Ahmed Shah Durrani*

The Sikh Confederacy of Punjab under Ranjit Singh won Kashmir in 1819 from
Durrani .Ranjit Singh ruled over
Kashmir and the greater part of what is now in Pakistan. His capital was
Amritsar and Lahore .

In 1846, the British defeated the Sikhs .

Lord Hardinge sold Kashmir for Rs 7.5 million to Ghulab Singh .

Ghulab Singh was the ruler of Jammu & Ladakh . He was Ranjit Singh`s grand
nephew.

Ghulab Singh established the Dogra dynasty ( Jamwal Rajput) which produced
4 rulers who contributed tremendously for Kashmir.

Ghulab Singh died in 1857 and was succeeded by his son Rambir Singh.

Thereafter Partab Singh ruled Kashmir.

Partab Singh was succeeded by and Hari Singh
( father of Dr. Karan Singh ).

 *Dr. Karan Singh*

*The Kashmir Tangle*

India-Pakistan partition took place in 1947.

Hari Singh He was given the choice to join either India or Pakistan or
remain independent.

Hari Singh chose to join India . Hari Singh appointed Sheik Abdullah as the
Prime Minister.

*Sheik Abdullah*

Sheik Abdullah formed the party- Muslim Conference, which was later renamed
National Conference in 1932.

Sheik Abdullah kept opposing Hari Singh and in 1946 launched “Quit Kashmir”
movement against the Hari Singh.

In end 1947 Nehru started discussing with Sheik Abdullah the terms of
integration with India.

This was a significant departure from the practice being followed, as for
merging Princely States with India was being handled by SardarPatel .

Over a disagreement with Nehru ,Sardar resigned.

However Gandhiji brokered a compromise and Sradar stayed on.

It was Nehru and Sheik Abdullah who produced Article 370 – a temporary
provision  – the most debated article during the past 60 years!

Article 370 states that J & K is an integral part of India. Kashmiris have
the best of everything . They can settle anywhere in India,but outsiders
cannot settle in Kashmir.

Kashmir will never get a special status like Article 370 in Pakistan?

*Hot bed of religious politics*

Kashmir is not J&K”

*Kashmir** is disputed , J&K is not.*

*Kashmir** is too small for Azadi.*

Kashmir is 6.8% in area of undivided J&K.
This 6.8% area is holding India to ransom.

If area of Kashmiri Hindus’ homeland (Panun Kashmir),
*is taken out , Kashmir will be lesser than 6.8% .*

Kashmiri separatists leaders want to join
Pakistan obviously for selfish reasons .

Kashmir is one of world’s smallest land locked area.
Kashmir will not have enough resources to sustain itself .

*Muslims are in majority *(97%) only in *Kashmir** and not in J&K .*

*Hindu population has diminished with migration and conversions.*

*J&K *comprises of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh*.*

Kashmir comprises of previously undivided districts of
Anantnag, Baramulla and Srinagar (now divided into 10 districts).

*Kashmir is shouting “Go India Go” .Others in J&K are happy in India.*

“India is Kashmir to Kanya kumari ” is not correctly worded as
Kashmir is not the northern most tip of India ; Ladakh is.

Kashmir is geographically within India .

Kashmir is not in PoK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir).

Languages of PoK are :

Pahari, Mirpuri, Gojri, Hindko, Punjabi, Pashto .
None of these is any where close to Kashmiri .

People living in PoK are ethnically different from Kashmiris.

*Question is ; can a Muslim mohalla in Hyderabad or Meerut  or*
*Bhendi bazar in Mumbai ask for a separate country from India?*

*13. 8 crore  Muslims of  India are silent on Kashmir. *

 * We all have strengths and abilities: the difference is whether we have a strong political will.
**********************************************************************************************

THE BITE OF HISTORY

Some politicians are shrewd enough to gauge the true motives of neighboring countries from their postures. Sardar Patel was one such politician whose  premonitions and predictions have come out true now. But, unfortunately his views were not given the required consideration and his wisdom was never utilized by the Indian government properly.

THE BITE OF HISTORY

Letter from Deputy Prime Minister, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to Secretary-General of External Affairs Ministry Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai in 1950 on Tibet.

NEW DELHI
4 November 1950

My Dear Sir Girja,

Thank you for your letter of the 3rd November 1950. I am sending herewith the note which you were good enough to send me. I need hardly say that I have read it with a great deal of interest and profit to myself and it has resulted in a much better understanding of the points at issue and general though serious nature of the problem.

The Chinese advance into Tibet upsets all our security calculations. Hitherto, the danger to India on its land frontiers has always come from the North-West. Throughout history we have concentrated our armed might in that region. For the first time, a serious danger is now developing on the North and North-East side; at the same time, our danger from the West or North-West is in no way lessened. This creates most embarrassing defense problems and I entirely agree with you that a reconsideration of our military position and a redisposition of our forces are inescapable.

Regarding Communists, again the position requires a great deal of thought. Hitherto, the smuggling of arms, literature, etc. across the difficult Burmese and Pakistan frontier on the East or along the sea was our only danger. We shall now have to guard our Northern and North-eastern approaches also. Unfortunately, all these approaches-Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim and the tribal areas in Assam-are weak spots both from the point of view of communications and police protection and also established loyalty to India.

Even Darjeeling and Kalimpong area is by no means free from pro-Mongolian prejudices. The Nagas and other hill tribes in Assam have hardly had any contact with Indians. European missionaries and other visitors have been in touch with them, but their influence was, by no means, friendly to India and Indians. In Sikkim, there was political ferment some time ago. It seems to me there is ample scope for trouble and discontent in that small State.

Bhutan is comparatively quiet, but its affinity with Tibetans would be a handicap. Nepal (we all know too well, a weak oligarchic regime based almost entirely on force) is in conflict with an enlightened section of the people as well as enlightened ideas of the modern age. Added to this weak position, there is the irredentism of the Chinese. The political ambitions of the Chinese by themselves might not have mattered so much; but when they are combined with discontent in these areas, absence of close contact with Indians and Communist ideology the difficulty of the position increases manifold. We have also to bear in mind that boundary disputes, which have many times in history been the cause of international conflicts, can be exploited by Communist China and its source of inspiration, Soviet Russia, for a prolonged war of nerves, culminating at the appropriate time, in armed conflict.

We have also so take note of a thoroughly unscrupulous, unreliable and determined power practically at our doors. In your very illuminating survey of what has passed between us and the Chinese Government through our Ambassador, you have made out an unanswerable case for treating the Chinese with the greatest suspicion. What I have said above, in my judgment, entitles us to treat them with a certain amount of hostility, let alone a great deal of circumspection. In these circumstances, one thing, to my mind, is quite clear; and, that is, that we cannot be friendly with China and must think in terms of defense against a determined, calculating, unscrupulous, ruthless, unprincipled and prejudiced combination of powers, of which the Chinese will be the spearhead. There might be from them outward offers or protestations of friendship, but in that will be concealed an ultimate hideous design of ideological and even political conquest into their bloc. It is equally obvious to me that any friendly or appeasing approaches from us would either be mistaken for weakness or would be exploited in furtherance of their ultimate aim. It is this general attitude which must determine the other specific questions which you have so admirably stated. I am giving serious consideration to those problems and it is possible I may discuss this matter with you once more.

Yours sincerely,

VALLABHBHAI PATEL

Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, I.C.S.,
Secretary-General, External Affairs Ministry,
New Delhi.

The letter throws light on the thought process of the Indian government vis-a-vis Tibet and China in the initial years after the independence.

The letter is sourced from Claude Arpi’s collections of historical documents pertaining to India.

Letter from Deputy Prime Minister, Sardar Vhallabhbhai Patel to Prime Minister Jahawarlal Nehru

New Delhi
7 November 1950

My dear Jawaharlal,

1. Ever since my return from Ahmedabad and after the cabinet meeting the same day which I had to attend practically at 15 minutes’ notice and for which I regret I was not able to read all the papers, I have been anxiously thinking over the problem of Tibet and thought I should share with you what is passing through my mind.

2. I have carefully gone through the correspondence between the External Affairs Ministry and our Ambassador in Peking and through him the Chinese Government. I have tried to peruse this correspondence as favourably to our Ambassador and the Chinese Government as possible, but I regret to say that neither of them comes out well as a result of this study. The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intention. My own feeling is that at a crucial period they managed to instill into our Ambassador a false sense of confidence in their so-called desire to settle the Tibetan problem by peaceful means. There can be no doubt that during the period covered by this correspondence the Chinese must have been concentrating for an onslaught on Tibet. The final action of the Chinese, in my judgement, is little short of perfidy. The tragedy of it is that the Tibetans put faith in us; they chose to be guided by us; and we have been unable to get them out of the meshes of Chinese diplomacy or Chinese malevolence. From the latest position, it appears that we shall not be able to rescue the Dalai Lama. Our Ambassador has been at great pains to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions. As the External Affairs Ministry remarked in one of their telegrams, there was a lack of firmness and unnecessary apology in one or two representations that he made to the Chinese Government on our behalf. It is impossible to imagine any sensible person believing in the so-called threat to China from Anglo-American machinations in Tibet. Therefore, if the Chinese put faith in this, they must have distrusted us so completely as to have taken us as tools or stooges of Anglo-American diplomacy or strategy. This feeling, if genuinely entertained by the Chinese in spite of your direct approaches to them, indicates that even though we regard ourselves as the friends of China, the Chinese do not regard us as their friends. With the Communist mentality of “whoever is not with them being against them”, this is a significant pointer, of which we have to take due note. During the last several months, outside the Russian camp, we have practically been alone in championing the cause of Chinese entry into UN and in securing from the Americans assurances on the question of Formosa. We have done everything we could to assuage Chinese feelings, to allay its apprehensions and to defend its legitimate claims in our discussions and correspondence with America and Britain and in the UN. Inspite of this, China is not convinced about our disinterestedness; it continues to regard us with suspicion and the whole psychology is one, at least outwardly, of scepticism perhaps mixed with a little hostility. I doubt if we can go any further than we have done already to convince China of our good intentions, friendliness and goodwill. In Peking we have an Ambassador who is eminently suitable for putting across the friendly point of view. Even he seems to have failed to convert the Chinese. Their last telegram to us is an act of gross discourtesy not only in the summary way it disposes of our protest against the entry of Chinese forces into Tibet but also in the wild insinuation that our attitude is determined by foreign influences. It looks as though it is not a friend speaking in that language but a potential enemy.

3. In the background of this, we have to consider what new situation now faces us as a result of the disappearance of Tibet, as we knew it, and the expansion of China almost up to our gates. Throughout history we have seldom been worried about our north-east frontier. The Himalayas have been regarded as an impenetrable barrier against any threat from the north. We had a friendly Tibet which gave us no trouble. The Chinese were divided. They had their own domestic problems and never bothered us about frontiers. In 1914, we entered into a convention with Tibet which was not endorsed by the Chinese. We seem to have regarded Tibetan autonomy as extending to independent treaty relationship. Presumably, all that we required was Chinese counter-signature. The Chinese interpretation of suzerainty seems to be different. We can, therefore, safely assume that very soon they will disown all the stipulations which Tibet has entered into with us in the past. That throws into the melting pot all frontier and commercial settlements with Tibet on which we have been functioning and acting during the last half a century. China is no longer divided. It is united and strong. All along the Himalayas in the north and north-east, we have on our side of the frontier a population ethnologically and culturally not different from Tibetans and Mongoloids. The undefined state of the frontier and the existence on our side of a population with its affinities to the Tibetans or Chinese have all the elements of the potential trouble between China and ourselves. Recent and bitter history also tells us that Communism is no shield against imperialism and that the communists are as good or as bad imperialists as any other. Chinese ambitions in this respect not only cover the Himalayan slopes on our side but also include the important part of Assam. They have their ambitions in Burma also. Burma has the added difficulty that it has no McMahon Line round which to build up even the semblance of an agreement. Chinese irredentism and communist imperialism are different from the expansionism or imperialism of the western powers. The former has a cloak of ideology which makes it ten times more dangerous. In the guise of ideological expansion lie concealed racial, national or historical claims. The danger from the north and north-east, therefore, becomes both communist and imperialist. While our western and north-western threat to security is still as prominent as before, a new threat has developed from the north and north-east. Thus, for the first time, after centuries, India’s defence has to concentrate itself on two fronts simultaneously. Our defence measures have so far been based on the calculations of superiority over Pakistan. In our calculations we shall now have to reckon with communist China in the north and in the north-east, a communist China which has definite ambitions and aims and which does not, in any way, seem friendly disposed towards us.

4. Let us also consider the political conditions on this potentially troublesome frontier. Our northern and north-eastern approaches consist of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and the tribal areas in Assam. From the point of view of communication, there are weak spots. Continuous defensive lines do not exist. There is almost an unlimited scope for infiltration. Police protection is limited to a very small number of passes. There, too, our outposts do not seem to be fully manned. The contact of these areas with us is by no means close and intimate. The people inhabiting these portions have no established loyalty or devotion to India. Even Darjeeling and Kalimpong areas are not free from pro-Mongoloid prejudices. During the last three years, we have not been able to make any appreciable approaches to the Nagas and other hill tribes in Assam. European missionaries and other visitors had been in touch with them, but their influence was in no way friendly to India or Indians. In Sikkim, there was political ferment some time ago. It is quite possible that discontent is smouldering there. Bhutan is comparatively quiet, but its affinity with Tibetans would be a handicap. Nepal has a weak oligarchic regime based almost entirely on force: it is in conflict with a turbulent element of the population as well as with enlightened ideas of the modern age. In these circumstances, to make people alive to the new danger or to make them defensively strong is a very difficult task indeed and that difficulty can be got over only by enlightened firmness, strength and a clear line of policy. I am sure the Chinese and their source of inspiration, Soviet Union, would not miss any opportunity of exploiting these weak spots, partly in support of their ideology and partly in support of their ambitions. In my judgement the situation is one which we cannot afford either to be complacent or to be vacillating. We must have a clear idea of what we wish to achieve and also of the methods by which we should achieve it. Any faltering or lack of decisiveness in formulating our objectives or in pursuing our policies to attain those objectives is bound to weaken us and increase the threats which are so evident.

5. Side by side with these external dangers, we shall now have to face serious internal problems as well. I have already asked (HVR) lyengar to send to the F.A. Ministry a copy of the Intelligence Bureau’s appreciation of these matters. Hitherto, the Communist Party of India has found some difficulty in contacting communists abroad, or in getting supplies of arms, literature, etc. from them. They had to contend with the difficult Burmese and Pakistan frontiers on the East with the long sea board. They shall now have a comparatively easy means of access to Chinese communists and through them to other foreign communists. Infiltration of spies, fifth columnists and communists would now be easier. Instead of having to deal with isolated communist pockets in Telengana and Warangal we may have to deal communist threats to our security along our Northern and North-eastern frontiers where, for supplies of arms and ammunition, they can safely depend on communist arsenals in China. The whole situation thus raises a number of problems on which we must come to early decision so that we can, as I said earlier, formulate the objectives of our policy and decide the method by which those objectives are to be attained. It is also clear that the action will have to be fairly comprehensive, involving not only our defense strategy and state of preparations but also problem of internal security to deal with which we have not a moment to lose. We shall also have to deal with administrative and political problem in the weak spots along the frontier to which I have already referred.

6. It is of course, impossible to be exhaustive in setting out all these problems. I am, however, giving below some of the problems which, in my opinion, require early solution and round which we have to build our administrative or military policies and measures to implement them.

• A Military and Intelligence appreciation of the Chinese threat to India both on the frontier and internal security.

• An examination of military position and such redisposition of our forces as might be necessary, particularly with the idea of guarding important routes or areas which are likely to be the subject of dispute.

• An appraisement of strength of our forces and, if necessary, reconsideration of our retrenchment plans to the Army in the light of the new threat.

• A long-term consideration of our defense needs. My own feeling is that, unless we assure our supplies of arms, ammunition and armour, we should be making a defense position perpetually weak and we would not be able to stand up to the double threat of difficulties both from the West and North-West and North and North-East.

• The question of Chinese entry into UNO. In view of rebuff China has given us and the method which it has followed in dealing with Tibet, I am doubtful whether we can advocate its claims any longer. There would probably be a threat in the UNO virtually to outlaw China in view of its active participation in Korean War. We must determine our attitude on this question also.

• The political and administrative steps which we should take to strengthen our Northern and North-Eastern frontier. This would include whole of border, i.e. Nepal, Bhutan. Sikkim. Darjeeling and tribal territory of Assam.

• Measure of internal security in the border areas as well as the state flanking those areas such as U.P., Bihar, Bengal and Assam.

• Improvement of our communication, road, rail, air and wireless with these areas and with the frontier outposts.

• The future of our mission at Lhasa and the trade post of Gyantse and Yatung and the forces which we have in operation in Tibet guarding trade routes.

• The policies in regards to McMahon Line.

These are some of the questions which occur to my mind. It is possible that a consideration of these matters might lead us into wider question of our relationship with China, Russia. America, Britain and Burma. This, however, would be of a general nature, though some might be basically very important. i.e. we might have to consider whether we should not enter into closer association with Burma in order to strengthen the latter in its dealings with China. I do not rule out the possibility that, before applying pressure on us, China might apply pressure on Burma. With Burma, the frontier is entirely undefined and the Chinese territorial claims are more substantial. In its present position, Burma might offer an easier problem to China, and therefore, might claim its first attention.

I suggest that we meet early to have a general discussion on these problems and decide on such steps as we might think to be immediately necessary and direct, quick examination of other problems with a view of taking early measure to deal with them.

Yours,
Vallabhbhai Patel

WHY HINDUS ARE A "HAPPY PEOPLE"?

George Harrison once said, “Through Hinduism Ifeel a better person. I just got happier and  happier.” 

There are many reasons why Hindus are so contented, but I’ll point out some of the important reasons I  believe that Hindus are happier than most people of many other religions.

One important reason is that Hindus don’t pursue love, which is sometimes lust,  but they follow dharma. That means taking care  of the family and society. But an even more important reason is that Hindus believe in  Reincarnation (karma), which means every human being is at a different level of consciousness so they have different needs in spirituality. 

Hinduism provides this as it gives complete freedom of thoughts and beliefs. There are some Hindus who are happy doing pujas and others are happy doing yagnas, some are happy just doing meditation while others are atheist. There are some who like to go on pilgrimages, while others are happy not having to go  to Temple. Some like to read spiritual books or believe in no form for God. Some Hindus enjoy going to Temple or Satsang while others like to follow and worship a Guru. People of different levels of consciousness are all happy doing their thing.

This diverse way of spirituality does not exist in  monoistic religions for example Islam and Christianity which has only one God, one name, one book, and only one way to worship on the same day. Hindus not only have many spiritual books but there are some still being written. Hindus are also happy because they respect and love people of all religions, and  believe in non-violence. Hindus not only worship murtis (idols) but they can worship man as God as well. This variety of spiritualism makes man very happy and contented. Some Hindus complain that  Hindus do too much murti pujas.This freedom is like a democracy, everyone is happily complaining. 

If you want to be happy, become a Hindu again because variety is the spice of life. Hindus are happy at every level. Hindus believe God is one but names are many, truth is one but religions are many.  ===================================

Name(required)

Email(required)

Website

Comment(required)

Submit

Δ