Saturday, 13 February 2016
Friday, 12 February 2016
Thursday, 11 February 2016
Monday, 8 February 2016
Thursday, 4 February 2016
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Tuesday, 26 January 2016
Monday, 25 January 2016
History Of Kashmir
History Of Kashmir
An estimated one million Kashmiris marched through the streets of
Srinagar, the disputed state's capital, on Friday, Aug. 22, many waving the
green flag of Islam and demanding freedom - azadi - from Indian rule. A harsh
crackdown followed. The message should be that exacerbating the trouble in
Kashmir will only make things worse between us. At the same time, it should
urge the Indians to show restraint. This includes reining in their natural
tendency to pin the blame on Pakistan for their own mistakes in dealing with
the Kashmiris. HOWARD AND TERESITA
SCHAFFER [Kashmir's fuse alight] [THE WASHINGTON TIMES]
[September 3, 2008]
Sir Walter Lawrence in his book
"The Valley of Kashmir" writes:
"Much has been written by
Europeans on the subject of this beautiful country since Bernier told the world
of 'Cashmere' the Paradise of the Indies, and even the languid orientals,
supposed by some to be incapable of appreciating beauty of scenery, are moved
to admiration when they see Kashmir. In their language the valley is an emerald
set in pearls; a land of lakes, clear streams, green turf, magnificent trees
and mighty mountains - where the air is cool, and the water sweet, where men
are strong, and women vie with the soil in fruitfulness."
An impression created by mischief
mongers that Muslim rulers of Kashmir converted people using force and also
desecrated or destroyed places of worship belonging to the majority Hindu and
Buddhist community. It is illogical to think that any Muslim ruler would make a
few million Muslims to migrate and drive the local population out. The fact
remains that the call of Islam heeded by huge majority rejected idol worship
and would not need the idols any more. In this connection M L Kapur in his book
´History of Jammu & Kashmir´ talks about Muslim rulers and makes a special
mention of Sultan Sikandar (1389-1413) who banned gambling, drinking of wine,
dancing of women and the practice of Sati among the Hindus. In matters of religion
also, Shah Mir and most of the successors were perfectly tolerant, and made no
distinction between their Hindu and Muslim subjects. Qutb-ud-Din 1373-89) even
used to offer prayers at the Hindu temples.
Accession Story: STATE OF KASHMIR
Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and
Kashmir, inheriting the throne in 1925 was the reigning monarch in 1947. As
parties to the partition process, both India and Pakistan had agreed that the
rulers of princely states would be given the right to opt for either dominion
or in special cases remain independent. Though the controversial article 370 of
Indian constitution was very much in place that would not allow outsiders to
claim 'state subject status', a systematic manipulation by successive
governments imposed by India changed the demographic character by allowing
Hindu population to infiltrate and settle in Jammu, the area dominated by
Hindus. The intrigue could not succeed in Kashmir as these would be settlers
could easily be identified due to their culture, language, race or colour. The
Maharaja offered to sign a "standstill" agreement with Pakistan,
which ensured continuity of supplies, trade, travel, and communication between
the two. The centuries old tradition of trade, between the areas that formed
Pakistan and Kashmir, had also a railway line and a road to Srinagar that made
access to the valley easier.
Hari Singh wanted Jammu and Kashmir
to remain independent. In order to buy some time, he signed a stand-still
agreement, which side-stepped the agreement that each princely state would join
either India or Pakistan. Initially Hari Singh tried to resist their progress
but failed. So on 26 October 1947 purported Kashmir accession papers were
signed and Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar. The growing Indian clandestine
political activity sent alarming bells to the newly created independent nation
of Pakistan and very little could be done by Pakistan´s shocked
Governor-General Mohammad Ali Jinnah whose army Chief General Douglas Gracy
preferred to act on the orders received from Governor General of India Lord
Mountbatten. The invasion from North-West Frontier Province in October 1947
masterminded by Major Khursheed Anwar to occupy and annex Kashmir to become a
part of Pakistan lacked planning having no initial support from Pakistan army.
As there already was an uprising against the Maharaja it was wrongly presumed
that the going would be easy and smooth. Little did the invading planners know
that Sheikh Abdullah was in command of the ground situation and the fact that beguiled
Sheikh had managed to sedate the local population who in turn offered no
resistance and stayed indifferent to the landing of Indian forces In Kashmir?
That was most important part of the plan and without Sheikh roped in the plan
would definitely fail.
Maharaja fleeing in fear reached
Jammu and arranged to contact Mountbatten for assistance and the entire running
to and fro by a very close confidant of Mountbatten, V P Menon made this
process easy, and the Governor-General agreed on the condition that the ruler
accedes to India. Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession that is
believed to be unauthentic, Indian soldiers transported by air and road entered
Kashmir and a battle ensued and the only thing Indian military managed was to
stop the raiders from advancing further to more than half the state. Pakistan,
apart from a third of the region, controls the Northern Areas, or historically
known as regions of Gilgit and Baltistan. The United Nations was then invited
to mediate and the UN mission insisted that the opinion of people of Kashmir
must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until
all of the state had been cleared of irregulars. However, Pakistan and people
of Kashmir who claim that the Indian army entered Kashmir before the Instrument
of Accession was signed.
United Nation resolutions to hold a
plebiscite with regard to Kashmir's future has not been held on either side.
The legal requirement for holding of a plebiscite was the withdrawal of the
Indian and Pakistani armies from the parts of Kashmir that were under their
respective occupation, a withdrawal that never did take place. In 1949, a
cease-fire line separating the Indian and Pakistani occupied parts of Kashmir
was formally put into effect.
The Pakistani government immediately
contested the accession, suggesting that it was fraudulent, that the Maharaja
acted under duress, and that he had no right to sign an agreement with India
when the standstill agreement with Pakistan was still in force.
Maharaja Hari Singh´s refusal to
accede to either dominion created a wedge between Indian leaders especially
Nehru, Patel and the Maharaja. This led to a different strategy adopted by
Nehru and the caucus around him and it was decided to sideline Maharaja and win
over Kashmir´s upcoming leader Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah instead. Sheikh
Abdullah by then had emerged a strong political leader but due to his lack of
political maturity fell a prey to Nehru´s machinations and faltered. Maharaja
fearing pressure from NWFP who entered Kashmir agreed to join India by signing
the controversial Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947. Kashmir was
provisionally accepted into the Indian Union pending a free and impartial
plebiscite. This was spelled out in a letter from the Governor General of
India, Lord Mountbatten, to the Maharaja on 27th October 1947. In the letter,
accepting the accession, Mountbatten made it clear that the State would only be
incorporated into the Indian Union after a reference had been made to the
people of Kashmir. In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN
auspices; however, since the plebiscite demanded by the UN was never conducted,
relations between India and Pakistan soured.
The UN Security Council on 20th
January 1948 passed Resolution 39, establishing a special commission to
investigate the conflict. Subsequent to the commission's recommendation, the
Security Council ordered in its Resolution 47, passed on 21 April 1948, that
Pakistan retreat from Jammu & Kashmir and that the accession of Kashmir is
determined in accordance with a plebiscite to be supervised by the UN. In a
string of subsequent resolutions, the Security Council took notice of the
continuing failure by India to hold the Plebiscite, and Pakistan never left the
part of the Kashmir they occupied as required by the Security Council
resolution 47. The Government of India holds that the Maharaja signed a
document of accession with India on October 26, 1947. Pakistan has disputed
whether the Maharaja actually signed the accession treaty before Indian troops
entered Kashmir.
This not being enough for Kashmir
ordeal, in the mid-1950s the Chinese army entered the northeast portion of
Ladakh. By 1956-57 they completed a military road through the Aksai Chin area
to provide better communication between their Muslim province of Xinjiang and
western Tibet. China has occupied Aksai Chin since 1962 and in addition to
this; unfortunately, Trans-Karakoram Tract was ceded by Pakistan to China in
1965.
Hari Singh in 1949 left Jammu and
Kashmir, and yielded the government to Sheikh Abdullah, backed by Nehru. Since
then, a bitter enmity has developed between India and Pakistan and three wars
fought between these new nuclear powers over Kashmir have made this a volatile
situation having dangerous consequences. The growing dispute over Kashmir also
led to an uprising by local population against India and rise of militancy in
the state to fight the Indian rule. The year 1989 saw the intensification of
conflict in Jammu and Kashmir as more than one hundred thousand men, women and
children are slaughtered for a mere crime of asking for freedom from foreign
rule.
The Maharaja made an Order on October
30, 1947 appointing Sheikh Abdullah the Head of the Emergency Administration,
replacing it, on March 5, 1948, with Interim Government with the Sheikh as
Prime Minister. It was enjoined to convene a National Assembly "to frame a
Constitution" for the State.
Sheikh Abdullah had no cards to play
when he concluded an Accord with Indira Gandhi and became Chief Minister on
February 24, 1975. At the outset, on August 23, 1974, he had written to G.
Parthasarathy: "I hope that I have made it abundantly clear to you that I
can assume office only on the basis of the position as it existed on August 8,
1953." Judgment on the changes since "will be deferred until the
newly elected Assembly comes into being".
On June 16, 1949, Sheikh Abdullah,
Mirza Afzal Beg, Maulana Masoodi and Moti Ram Bagda joined the Constituent
Assembly of India. Negotiations began in earnest on Article 370. N. Gopalaswamy
Ayyangar tried to reconcile the differences between Patel and Abdullah. A text,
agreed on October 16, was moved in the Constituent Assembly the next day,
unilaterally altered by Ayyangar. "A trivial change," as he admitted
in a letter to the Sheikh on October 18. Patel confirmed it to Nehru on
November 3 on his return from the United States. Beg had withdrawn his
amendment after the accord. Abdullah and he were in the lobby, and rushed to
the House when they learnt of the change. In its original form the draft would
have made the Sheikh's ouster in 1953 impossible.
The State's Constitution was
overridden by the Delhi's orders. Its basic structure was altered. A Governor
nominated by the Centre replaced the head of the State elected by the State
legislature. Article 356 (imposition of President's Rule) was applied despite
provision in the State's Constitution for Governor's rule (Section 92). This
was done on November 21, 1964. On November 24, 1966, the Governor replaced the
Sadar-i-Riyasat after the State's Constitution had been amended on April 10,
196 5 by the 6th Amendment in violation of Section 147 of the Constitution.
Article 370 was used freely not only to amend the Constitution of India but
also of the State. On July 23, 1975 an Order was made debarring the State
legislature from amending the State Constitution on matters in respect of the
Governor, the Election Commission and even "the composition" of the
Upper House, the Legislative Council.
GIVEN their record, whenever Kashmir
is involved, how can anyone ask Kashmiris to welcome Union institutions (such
as the Election Commission) with warmth?
This was a political accord between
an individual, however eminent, and the Government, like the Punjab Accord
(July 24, 1985); the Assam Accord (August 15, 1985); the Nagaland Accord
(November 11, 1975); and the Mizoram Accord (June 30, 1986) - e ach between the
government and the opposition. It cannot override Article 370; still less
sanctifies Constitutional abuse. It bound the Sheikh alone and only until 1977.
This was explicitly an accord on
"political cooperation between us", as Indira Gandhi wrote (December
16, 1974). On February 12, 1975, Abdullah recorded that it provided "a
good basis for my cooperation at the political level". In Parliament on
March 3, 1975 she called it a "new political understanding". He was
made Chief Minister on February 24, backed by the Congress' majority in the
Assembly and on the understanding of a fresh election soon. Sheikh Abdullah's
memoirs Aatish-e-Chinar (Urdu) record her backtracking on the pledge and the
Congress' perfidy in March 1977 when she lost the Lok Sabha elections. It
withdrew support and staked a claim to form a government. Governor's Rule was
imposed. The Sheikh's National Conference won the elections with a resounding
majority on the pledge to restore Jammu and Kashmir's autonomy, which was also
Farooq's pledge in 1996. The 1975 accord had collapsed.
Indian
story: Justification for occupation
The people of India are generally
perceived to be sympathetic to the plight of Kashmiris and believe that holding
on to Kashmir is a political mistake and believe Kashmiris to have the
legitimate right to choose their future as was promised to them by the leaders
of India and United Nations resolutions. The people are also aware that huge
resources are being diverted to defence rather than improve the situation of
more than sixty percent population living below the poverty line. Apart from
turning the valley into a concentration camp with nearly a million troops armed
to teeth, the situation becomes clear with just one example among many others.
The leaders of scores of hindu fundamentalist organisations, Sang Parivar,
Bajrag Dal, Hindu Mahasabha and many others travel to the valley to fly Indian
national flag and sing national anthem in Lal chowk(red square) of Srinagar,
the capital city. This all is done by imposing a curfew and putting the entire
population behind doors so that they can demonstrate and prove to the people of
India that "Kashmir hamara hai" (Kashmir is ours). A special
reference can be made to hindu fandamantalist Murli Manohar joshi's trip on
January 26th 1992 and this has been going on since October 14, 1947. The global
political scene changed dramatically after 9/11 and it did help India to put
Kashmir question on the back burner and a hope that the passing time might
create an atmosphere of normalcy using a carrot and stick policy. India also
received some help by managing to divide the political forces in Kashmir and
because of the wrong approach, divided opinion among "leaders" any
political progress is hampered and again Indian strategy, it seems, is working
by receiving this indirect help. A glimmer of hope is envisaged due the current
global political situation when USA is extending its sphere of influence
throughout Europe and its control on the economic resources is becoming firmer
day by day. In this context, it is very important for rest of the world
community especially third world countries to create an economic block of their
own to be able to survive in future. It has become vitally important for India,
Pakistan, China and Russia to lead this new block and in future this would
guarantee to create a peaceful conducive atmosphere and allow people to live in
a friendly environment. This all can be achieved if Kashmir is left alone by
both India and Pakistan. As parties to the partition both India and Pakistan
had agreed that the rulers of the Princely states would be given the right to
opt either for India or Pakistan or in special case to remain independent.
United Nations Organization in its resolutions of Jan 20, 1948, 1939 and April
21, 1948 insists that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained.
Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime
Minister, initially, seemed sincere towards kashmir but the caucus of
harldliner Hindu fundamentalist forces around made him to think otherwise, in
this connection Pandit Nehru, in the Lok Sabha (Parliament) on June 26 and
August 7, 1952 said:
"I say with all respect to our
Constitution that it just does not matter what your Constitution says; if the
people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there. Because what is the
alternative? The alternative is compulsion and coercion...""We have
fought the good fight about Kashmir on the field of battle... (and) ...in many
a chancellery of the world and in the United Nations, but, above all, we have
fought this fight in the hearts and minds of men and women of that State of
Jammu and Kashmir. Because, ultimately - I say this with all deference to this
Parliament - the decision will be made in the hearts and minds of the men and
women of Kashmir; neither in this Parliament, nor in the United Nations nor by
anybody else,"
Alastair
Lamb in his 'Birth of a tragedy' comments on the political situation in
Kashmir "The tragedy of Kashmir, and all its ramifications and
consequences, must stop. No person with the modicum of concern for human rights
can contest this proposition. What is disputed, of course, is how the horror
can be ended."
That
Maharaja of Kashmir; Sir Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession with
India; and the popular upcoming leader of Kashmir, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah
ratified the Accession document and;
The plebiscite or Right of Self-
Determination as per the understanding reached with a commitment to Last
Viceroy Lord Mountbatten or UN Security Council Resolutions is null and void
due to the reason that Kashmir held various local elections to choose their
elected government and representatives. So, no need for a plebiscite, and
As per the UN Security Council
Resolutions, Pakistan must vacate its occupation of the area of Kashmir and
also minimal presence of Indian troops for a plebiscite, if at all, to be held,
and finally. the present uprising in
Kashmir is nothing but Islamic terrorism helped, aided and abetted by Pakistan
from across the border.
At the outset; the Accession Document
signed by Maharaja Sir Hari Singh is considered highly controversial as many
quarters believe that no such document was ever signed. In this connection
Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw (erstwhile Army Chief of India) observed throwing
light on the claim saying:
I was in the Palace when V P Menon,
Mahajan (Mehr Chand) and the Maharaja were discussing the subject. The Maharaja
was running from one room to another..I did not see Maharaja signing
it(accession document), nor did I see Mahajan. All I do know is that V P Menon
turned around and said, Sam weve got the accession.
Lord Mountbatten visited Kashmir in
June, 1947 and in a conversation Mountbatten suggested to Maharaja that he
should join Pakistan.
I dont want to accede to Pakistan on
any account, Hari Singh answered. Well, Mountbatten said, it is up to you, but
I think you should consider it very carefully since after all 90% of your
people are Moslem. But, if you dont, then you must join India. In that case, I
will see that an infantry division is sent up here to preserve the integrity of
your boundaries.
No, replied the Maharaja, I dont wish
to join India either. I wish to be independent.
So history proved Maharaja to be on
the right and his tough stance for staying independent would have changed the
course of history saving thousands of innocent lives. Unfortunately the die was
cast to lay the foundation for more than a billion people to nurse a festering
wound for decades. A serious dispassionate and objective effort must be made to
probe into reasons that led to removal of Sheikh Abdullah from seat of power as
interim Prime Minister, on August 9, 1953.
Initially, the intention of Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru, it is perceived, cannot be doubted as on several occasions he
reiterated his declared position to Sheikh Abdullahs person, people of Kashmir,
the international community and more importantly to the United Nations Security
Council to grant the right of self determination to the State of Kashmir. To
this effect, one of his (Pandit Nehru) several statements can be quoted to
reveal his intention as on July 6, 1951 he said:
People
seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It
has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their
future.
The umbilical cord tightly in place
of two bosom friends was smashed to smithereens and again it is vitally
important to probe into the reasons creating a breach of trust and parting of
ways. The history of Kashmir had to be re-written and the caucus of Kashmiri
bureaucratic elite surrounded Pandit Nehru to remind him of imaginary threat to
4% Kashmiri Brahmans from Muslim majority Kashmir. The group succeeded to
inveigle Pandit Ji in believing a far fetched possibility; though Kashmir, all
along, had been peaceful under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah with a popular
slogan on every Kashmiri Muslims lips SHERI KASHMIR KA KYA IRSHAD HINDU MUSLIM SIKH ITIHAD (Sheikh Abdullahs avowed slogan, unity of Hindus, Muslims and
Sikhs) compared to whatever on the day was happening beyond Udhampur in Jammu
Province.
In the spring of 1953, Pandit Nehru
was made to believe that Sheikh Abdullah was playing with the idea of creating
an independent sovereign nation of Kashmir as he met visiting US Democrat
leader Adlai Stevenson and if that happened 4% fellow Kashmiris either would
have the option to migrate to India or get annihilated. And charging him
(Nehru) up emotionally was reminded of his ancestral heritage and culture of
his forefathers that eventually would become a history.
Pandit Ji fell into a trap and took a
somersault to hatch a conspiracy of sedition and treason against Sheikh
Abdullah which became a turning point forcing Indian establishment to resort to
schemes or intrigues deciding future of Kashmir relations as per the whims,
wishes and directions of this elite group. Sheikh Abdullah, a towering
personality, a crowed puller, a political messiah of Kashmiri masses was
sidelined and replaced by poodles and puppets kept in power through rigged
elections and each time deployment of army to conduct such elections meant more
deaths.
To describe August 9, 1953 action
taken by Pandit Nehru at the behest of elite privileged Kashmiri group, Dr.
Karan Singh, the Yuvraj (Crown Prince) of Maharaja Hari Singh says: The history
of the Indian sub- continent would have been "different" if the then
Maharaja Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah had come to an agreement on the State
soon after accession. Hari Singh had maintained a "dignified silence"
over the events that took place in late 1940s and his "one statement could
have deeply embarrassed the Indian government. Hari Singh had agreed to go to
exile after signing the Instrument of Accession agreement with India and Sheikh
Abdullah wrote a letter to him saying that despite all happenings "he
would be a loyal subject" to him. "Had Maharaja Hari Singh and Sheikh
Abdullah been able to come to an agreement, the whole history of the
sub-continent would have been different. Unfortunately, that did not happen. My
father was exiled and Sheikh Abdullah was dismissed (as Prime Minister). I
dismissed him. I have to admit."
The two arguments that Maharaja
signed the Accession and Sheikh Abdullah ratifying it fall like a pack of cards
as it did not take, the people at helm, long to exile Maharaja and imprison
Sheikh Abdullah. On the day when Sheikh Abdullah was removed, then popular
leader of Kashmir, an estimated fifteen hundred people died in indiscriminate
firing, crushing uprising with an iron hand put last nail in the coffin of
total alienation from India.
The sham elections held for the last
sixty five years have always been used to mislead the international community
and Kashmiris felt cheated on all occasions and the degree of anger took a
leap. Kashmiris believe that these elections were rather a need of the
successive governments in New Delhi to maintain credibility of Indias
democratic values that she has been struggling to uphold.
Elections, even if fair, cannot be an
alternative for a plebiscite, a referendum or a right of self determination
promised and conducted under the supervision of some UN body. Kashmiris believe
that wars cannot be a solution as India cannot win the part held by Pakistan
nor can Pakistan win the area held by India and Kashmir cannot be held as
hostage to the argument that Pakistan should vacate the area occupied or
vice-versa as that leads us back to square one.
India and Pakistan have to sit across
the table and decide on a modus operandi for such a plebiscite or referendum.
Kashmiris plea that everything right or wrong has been tried to put across
their point seeking their legitimate rights but nothing seems to work. A lot of
blood has already been spilled and a sparsely populated Kashmir cannot afford
anymore killings.
Kashmirs large majority believes that
relation with India would not be at a point of no return if Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru had allowed politically firm Sheikh Abdullah to continue with developed
understanding and refused to succumb to the pressure of the notorious
bureaucratic elite group.
1989 saw a violent uprising against
India, people of Kashmir taking up arms and the resultant loss of two
generations numbering more than one hundred thousand people dead (Indian
official figure as sixty thousand dead), hundreds of rapes, thousands
disappeared consumed in torture chambers and millions worth of a huge number of
properties turned into a mound of rubble.
Saturday, 23 January 2016
Friday, 22 January 2016
Thursday, 21 January 2016
Samsung 32" HD ready Led Tv Model "32j4100"
RS:33,000
Product Description
WITHOUT WALL MOUNT BRACKET
Richer, more balanced color
With advanced technology Wide Color Enhancer Plus, your Samsung TV is capable of displaying more balanced colors and reproduce some shades of cyan and magenta usually difficult to display on an LED screen. Gone are the faces that sometimes turn yellow or green. You will finally see their true color. Regardless of the brightness of the scene, the colors in your images will be faithful and balanced. You will soon understand the difference!
Offer the best pictures to your TV
The HDMI standard ensures you the best possible speed between your various media devices. Enjoy the best picture possible and all related functionality. For example you can keep only one remote to control your compatible HDMI devices connected.
Post the entire contents of your USB drive on your TV!
With ConnectShare Movie, simply plug your USB drive on your TV to play back content stored on it. Watch movies, start a slideshow with your photos or listen to your favorite playlists on the speakers of your TV. Your TV supports most existing codecs. You will find a comprehensive list on the instructions of your TV (also available on the website Samsung.com in the "" Downloads "".)
SPECIFICATIONS
Technology
Technology
LED
Series
Series
4
Screen
screen size
32 "Screen Size (cm)
80Resolution
1366 x 768 (HD)Ultra Clear Panel
NoCurved screen
No
Video
Video Processor
HyperReal EnginePQI (Picture Quality Index)
100 PQIMicro Dimming
NoPrecision Black (Local Dimming)
NoColor Management
Wide Color EnhancerMovie Mode
YesFormat
16/9Ultra clear view
YesMotion Judder Canceller
YesPeak Illuminator
No
Audio
Dolby Digital Plus
Dolby Digital Plus / Dolby PulseVirtual Surround
DTS Studio SoundDTS codec
DTS Premium Sound 5.13D Sound
NoCustomization sound
NoSound Power (RMS)
10 W x 2Speaker Type
Down Firing + Full RangeBroadband
NoHD Audio
YesWireless Multiroom Audio System
NoCompatible Soundshare / TV Soundconnect
No
smart TV
Samsung SMART TV
NoApps
NoGames
NoWeb browser
YesSkype ™ on your TV
No
Smart Interaction
Voice interaction
NoVoice control
No
Convergence
TV to Mobile - Mirroring
NoMobile to TV - mirroring, DLNA
NoSamsung SMART View
NoMorning Briefing
NoWi-Fi Direct
No
Tuner
Tuner
DVB-T / CDouble Tuner Function
NoCI / CI + / + 2CI
CI + (1.3)HbbTV
No
Connectivity
HDMI
2USB
1Component input (Y / Pb / Pr)
1Composite Input (AV)
YesEthernet (LAN)
NoHeadphone jack
1Audio output (mini jack)
YesDigital audio output (optical)
1 OPTICALAntenna: Terrestrial / Cable / Satellite
Yes / Yes / NoEx-Link (RS-232C)
NoCI Location
1SCART
1HDMI 3D Auto Setting
NoHDMI A / Return Ch. Support
NoHDMI Quick Switch
NoWi-Fi enabled
NoIntegrated Wi-Fi
NoAnynet + (HDMI-CEC)
No
Design
Design
Wavy LineFrame Type
Ultra-thin edgesFinesse Screen
SlimColour frame
BLACKLogo light
NoSwivel Stand
No
Other Features
Samsung 3D
No3D Converter
NoInstant Ignition
NoIntegrated camera
NoCompatible SCSA
NoAccessibility
NoDigital Clean View
YesOne socket Connect
NoAutomatic channel search
YesAutomatic shutdown
YesBD Wise More
NoManagement subtitles
YesCopies of the list of channels on USB
YesConnect Share ™ (1A USB HDD)
NoConnectShare ™ (USB)
YesSports Fashion
BasicProgram Guide
YesPVR Function
NoGame Mode
YesMenu language
FRENCH (26 European languages)Picture-In-Picture
YesHID compatible accessories via Bluetooth
NoHID compatible USB accessories
NoFuture Ready
NoTeletext (TTXT)
YesTime Shift (direct control)
NoUltra Clean View
No
Eco Function
Eco Mark
EU EcolabelEnergy label
YesEnergy efficiency class
A +
Energy
Food
220 ~ 240VConsumption (max)
54 W
Dimensions
Packaging dimensions
887 x 503 x 122 mmDimensions with stand
736.1 x 488.7 x 151.0Dimensions without stand
736.1 x 447.4 x 62.9 mm
Weight
Product weight in its packaging
6.24Total weight with stand
4.75Total weight without stand
4.50
Accessories
Active 3D glasses (included)
NoRemote Controller Model
TM1240ABatteries (for remote control)
YesRemote Smart Remote (included)
NoCompatible Mini Wallmount
YesVESA wall mount
Yes (200 x 200)IR blaster cable (included)
Nouser manual
YesElectronic manual
Yespower cable
Yes