A new route to health
South Asian countries like India, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Hong Kong have transformed themselves into popular health care destinations, apart from being a tourist’s paradise. These countries welcome foreign guests from the European Union, the United States and the Gulf, not to mention their pounds, euros and dollars, with open arms. Patients from the developed countries find treatment here an effective and reliable alternative to expensive health care in their home countries.
The high cost of treatment, long waits and red tape in their countries have forced many US, EU and Gulf citizens to look East. Even though the USA spends $ 2.2 trillion annually on its health sector to cater to a population of less than 300 million, the services are inaccessible to the uninsured. The USA’s health system rests heavily on insurance and with the recent figures showing an estimated 50 million people uninsured there, the health benefits can be enjoyed only by those who can afford it.
Dr. Eugene Jacob, who has done his M.B.A. in medicine from Germany says, “This trend is good for India because of the awareness that the gold-standard health care can be provided at a reasonable cost in our country too, contrary to the western belief.”
Hospitals catering to foreign patients are upgrading their interiors to resemble five-star hotels. They make sure that their quality standards are up to the mark. From hassle free travelling to accommodation for the patients’ escorts, all is taken care of by the hospital and its partners.
Medical tourism in 2007 was a US$ 60 billion global industry and is expanding by 20% every year. Five major countries, India, Jordan, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand reported about 2 million medical travellers in 2004. India alone catered to some 1,50,000 patients in the same year, mainly from the US, Britain, Gulf, Africa and South Asian Association for Regional Corporation (SAARC) countries. Speakers at the International medical tourism conference that took place in Las Vegas, USA, in 2007 said, “India will welcome some 500,000 patients this year and by 2012, medical tourism will pump $ 2.2 billion into that country’s economy.”
“Indian healthcare has been on an upswing ever since the world has put its faith in the magnitude of Indian doctors. Not only does it create the awareness of a rising medical economy, but satisfies the patient at a reasonable cost,” says Dr. Eugene.
In India, the Escorts Heart Institute, Apollo Group of Hospitals and Max Hospitals are the dominant players. Many private hospitals tie up with travel agencies and hotels to espouse medical treatments they pioneer.
Ms. Banasree Basu, Assistant Manager, Marketing of the International Patient Department of the Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, Delhi, says, “We are one of the finest chains of hospitals that take care of the needs of the international patients. With our well trained medical and other staff, we have achieved great laurels in this area of service.”
Health care is now advertised as a business. Apart from their medical department, millions are now spent on the hospitals’ management.
Some of these private hospitals have gained expertise and credibility through the excellent services they have offered to their patients. For instance, Wockhardt Hospital and Heart Institute in Bangalore completed its 500th beating heart coronary artery bypass graft in an awake patient.
Even though these private players’ roles are growing by leaps and bounds, their running goes unchecked. A major worry for the foreign patients is the quality of health care offered by the developing nations. Who is accountable if things go wrong and what recourse do the patients have if they are unhappy with the treatment given to them?
Experts in this area believe that the load on the local doctors in the developed countries will expand as they will have to correct the mistakes made by doctors in the developing countries. A recent survey shows that 68 Australian doctors had to correct botched surgeries of more than 100 women coming from ‘cosmetic surgery holidays’ from Thailand and Malaysia.
Since these private hospitals go unchecked, there is no concrete data available about either their ‘unsuccessful’ medical treatments or about the training and certification of their staff. We can only hope that the market forces will oblige these hospitals to maintain the quality standards.
Dr. Anoop Nangia, working in a public hospital, says, “The private sector in India is gradually bringing a lifestyle shift. Public hospitals are slowly beginning to be referred as only for the poor. Anyone with a slightly better income now prefers to go a private hospital, without bothering to check the quality of treatment there.”
In a country like India, where public health, which is a state subject, could not hold stable ground since the birth of the nation, the mushrooming of these private health care providers can be devastating.
They very conveniently prioritize profit making and are available for only those who have deep pockets. With the above average services they claim to offer, they manage to smoothly slip into the vacuum created by the shrinking government role in health matters.
According to a WHO Report in 2005, there are only 5.9 doctors per
10,000 population in India, highly concentrated in the urban areas, while the corresponding figures for the European Union is 33.1. Out of the total medical practitioners in India, almost one-third are non-registered and lack formal training. The demand for specialists is shooting up, but their numbers remain stagnant at 10-15 per 1 lakh population.
The steady inflow of medical tourists in a way, manages to check the migration of Indian doctors to the western countries. Specialists and doctors from public hospitals are lured into these corporate hospitals by irresistible packages, resulting in ‘internal brain drain’.
Dr. Eugene adds, “The future of Indian medical tourism will remain shining, till the world realises international medical benchmarking and alters cost. The negativity of it is that the private sectors, has started giving more importance to the tourists, sacrificing the cost-to-health ratio of its own citizens.”
Whether this trend is self-sustainable or not, only time will tell. But as of now, the emerging medical hubs of the world are providing a safe haven to the people from the first world countries falling outside the ambit of their own medical care.
Sonal Matharu
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
…and the fears stay on
Sonal Matharu
Karthik Ram
On 31st October 1984, six-year old Amrinder Singh became aware of the large scale violence that had been unleashed against his community. Residing in a Sikh majority population area, Vashisht Nagar near Janakpuri, in Delhi, his family were not the target yet. Not taking any chances, they nevertheless shifted their womenfolk to a relative’s house in a posh South Delhi locality.
Their fears came to life the very next day. At around 11 A.M a huge mob, shouting anti-Sikh and pro-Indira Gandhi slogans, fully armed with lathis and axes, suddenly engulfed their area. As if it was a well planned strategy, only the houses belonging to the Sikhs were targeted.
Amarjeet Singh, Amrinder’s father, recalls the fateful day, “They systematically went straight to all the Sikh houses in the locality as if they knew where all the Sikhs stayed.”
Amrinder’s grandfather, a retired army officer, then in his early 70s prepared himself to confront the mob with his Kirpan, but was prevented by Amarjeet. He was forcibly whisked away through the back door to a Muslim family’s house two doors away.
“My father grieved Indira Gandhi’s death as much as the whole nation did. All his life he served the country and this is how he was being rewarded. He could not control his anger,” says Amarjeet.
Amarjeet himself was dragged out by the mob and beaten by lathis. His Muslim neighbours rushed to his help. They managed to drag Amrinder and his bleeding father away from the crowd, bundled them into a car and drove them to a Muslim dominated area, where they stayed for the next four days.
Amrinder, now 30, says, “I still remember how the mob beat up my father. His turban had come off and he was bleeding. I was too young to help him and was terribly scared.”
Amarjeet returned to his house after things settled down in the city and was informed by his neighbours that the mob had first thoroughly removed useful things like the TV, telephone and other electrical appliances and loaded them onto the trucks. The cupboards were then broken open and whatever cash and jewellery they could lay their hands on, were pocketed. They smashed the rest of the furniture with their axes, and then they set the house afire.
“We lost everything in the riots and had nowhere to go. The place that was most safe for us, our home, was gone,” recalls Amarjeet.
Prepared to handle the worst, his family went to the local police station the next day and lodged a First Information Report (FIR). The police visited their burnt-down house and noted all the visible details. “We were a bit surprised as we did not have any problem lodging the FIR. We had lost all our faith in the system,” says Amarjeet.
But that was all the police did. Amrinder’s family had not expected much. They had seen the policemen standing across the road as mere spectators on the day of the attack. They had also noticed a senior police officer talking to some men sitting in white ambassador cars (allegedly used by the mob to commute) a few meters down the road.
Till date they have not heard of any progress on their FIR from the police. They did not get any summons from any court of law. Some journalists visited them and took down all the details of their ordeal, which appeared in some magazines and newspaper columns as a collective problem of their entire locality. Some NGOs came forward and assured them that cases would be filed on behalf of each family. They were assured that the culprits would be brought to book and adequate compensation given to them soon.
Three months after the attack, they received a letter from the Delhi Government, offering them a paltry compensation, which they refused.
25 years down the line, they are both frustrated and disillusioned with the system. They are now well aware that the riots and the police and court actions were all planned, executed and sanctioned by the Congress led government then.
“My heart burns every time I am reminded of that day. I grew up with this grief. I know what it means to be a minority in this country,” Amrinder says.
Amarjeet, now residing with his family in another colony in the same area, does not blame any particular community for the riots. According to him, it was a lesson for the minority community. It taught them that they could not take on the might of the government.
They appreciate the help extended by people of other communities—Hindus and Muslims—who came forward to help them.
Karthik Ram
On 31st October 1984, six-year old Amrinder Singh became aware of the large scale violence that had been unleashed against his community. Residing in a Sikh majority population area, Vashisht Nagar near Janakpuri, in Delhi, his family were not the target yet. Not taking any chances, they nevertheless shifted their womenfolk to a relative’s house in a posh South Delhi locality.
Their fears came to life the very next day. At around 11 A.M a huge mob, shouting anti-Sikh and pro-Indira Gandhi slogans, fully armed with lathis and axes, suddenly engulfed their area. As if it was a well planned strategy, only the houses belonging to the Sikhs were targeted.
Amarjeet Singh, Amrinder’s father, recalls the fateful day, “They systematically went straight to all the Sikh houses in the locality as if they knew where all the Sikhs stayed.”
Amrinder’s grandfather, a retired army officer, then in his early 70s prepared himself to confront the mob with his Kirpan, but was prevented by Amarjeet. He was forcibly whisked away through the back door to a Muslim family’s house two doors away.
“My father grieved Indira Gandhi’s death as much as the whole nation did. All his life he served the country and this is how he was being rewarded. He could not control his anger,” says Amarjeet.
Amarjeet himself was dragged out by the mob and beaten by lathis. His Muslim neighbours rushed to his help. They managed to drag Amrinder and his bleeding father away from the crowd, bundled them into a car and drove them to a Muslim dominated area, where they stayed for the next four days.
Amrinder, now 30, says, “I still remember how the mob beat up my father. His turban had come off and he was bleeding. I was too young to help him and was terribly scared.”
Amarjeet returned to his house after things settled down in the city and was informed by his neighbours that the mob had first thoroughly removed useful things like the TV, telephone and other electrical appliances and loaded them onto the trucks. The cupboards were then broken open and whatever cash and jewellery they could lay their hands on, were pocketed. They smashed the rest of the furniture with their axes, and then they set the house afire.
“We lost everything in the riots and had nowhere to go. The place that was most safe for us, our home, was gone,” recalls Amarjeet.
Prepared to handle the worst, his family went to the local police station the next day and lodged a First Information Report (FIR). The police visited their burnt-down house and noted all the visible details. “We were a bit surprised as we did not have any problem lodging the FIR. We had lost all our faith in the system,” says Amarjeet.
But that was all the police did. Amrinder’s family had not expected much. They had seen the policemen standing across the road as mere spectators on the day of the attack. They had also noticed a senior police officer talking to some men sitting in white ambassador cars (allegedly used by the mob to commute) a few meters down the road.
Till date they have not heard of any progress on their FIR from the police. They did not get any summons from any court of law. Some journalists visited them and took down all the details of their ordeal, which appeared in some magazines and newspaper columns as a collective problem of their entire locality. Some NGOs came forward and assured them that cases would be filed on behalf of each family. They were assured that the culprits would be brought to book and adequate compensation given to them soon.
Three months after the attack, they received a letter from the Delhi Government, offering them a paltry compensation, which they refused.
25 years down the line, they are both frustrated and disillusioned with the system. They are now well aware that the riots and the police and court actions were all planned, executed and sanctioned by the Congress led government then.
“My heart burns every time I am reminded of that day. I grew up with this grief. I know what it means to be a minority in this country,” Amrinder says.
Amarjeet, now residing with his family in another colony in the same area, does not blame any particular community for the riots. According to him, it was a lesson for the minority community. It taught them that they could not take on the might of the government.
They appreciate the help extended by people of other communities—Hindus and Muslims—who came forward to help them.
The IMF debacle in Africa
Roudra Bhattacharya
The IMF debacle in Africa
Africa, which has the lowest figures in most development indices, including health and education, has long been the poster-child for both the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank, both created out of the UN Monetary and Financial Conference, or the Bretton-Woods Conference of 44 Allied Nations held in New Hampshire, USA on July, 1944. After the experience of the great depression of the 1930s, both these agencies were created with the objective of maintaining global macro-economic stability, while pursuing a reduction in world poverty. In reality, however, they were American-controlled agencies dedicated primarily to the rebuilding of a war-devastated Europe. This was to be done by forwarding loans to economies in distress, but essentially also attaching a few conditions alongside it. The banks were to be funded by its members, and the fund was to be distributed to the concerned areas along with an attached package of structural reforms. The age of globalisation (post-1970s), however, has insured that the reach of the IMF and World Bank has grown far and wide. They, along with the WTO (World Trade Organisation), are now in supreme control of the world economy; while largely working in the interests of the industrialised nations. Currently, Africa is indebted to the IMF by $230 billion dollars, which is the greatest barrier to its economic recovery. Half of its people live in absolute poverty, and the condition in most states has been deteriorating for the past 20 years.
Since the main donors are the US, Europe and Japan, control effectively rests with these players. But this is just one of the many reasons why the functioning of the IMF through the decades has come under immense criticism, even from its sister concern, the World Bank. Unlike the Security Council, which has a five-member veto, only the US has a veto in the IMF. That means the US govt. has supreme control over any IMF action. For example, the IMF, as a requisite for providing loans, places a lot of regulations on specific countries, like trade liberalisation and credit market de-regulation. A country which badly needs the money for development or an immediate crisis can hardly disagree on the terms. This nearly always works in favour of US and European interests, as businesses from the developed nations gain access to a new market. The argument is that reforms like opening up the economy are necessary to insure a timely payback of loans to the IMF. But then the interest burden is often too much for a country, which then has to cut back spending from essential sectors like education and health. The experience of Africa and even Asia, has shown that IMF policies tend to create a concentration of wealth among the rich few who own the industry, while making the larger population ever poorer. Real wages have come down in these countries, and credit availability has gone down, while unemployment has risen even further.
The people of Africa, originally grouped into various tribes have been, since the 17th century, subject to the onslaught of the European powers. From the early days of the slave trade, exploitation increased manifold with the industrial revolution in Europe. For sourcing raw materials and developing new markets, Africa was cut up and divided into colonies by the imperialist monarchs of Britain, France and Portugal, besides Spain, Italy and Belgium. Through subjugation of the people by forced cultivation and destroying the indigenous economies, the people were reduced to a state of acute poverty by their European masters. After the World Wars, when the European powers left, a vacuum was created in the power structure leading to a period of civil war and warlordism, practically destroying the social fabric of the continent. The fact that the continent was rich in precious minerals like diamonds and gold only worked adversely for them. Instead of being used for commerce to bolster economic development, these were used by the independent rebels to finance war.
Much of the debt accumulated by African countries was built up during the 1970s, a time of reckless lending by banks and international agencies, and was agreed to by undemocratic governments. The population of the borrowing country realised little benefit from the loans as the money disappeared in failed infrastructure projects, corrupt schemes, or unwise investments. The debt has been growing since then as governments take out new loans to pay off old ones. Currently, of the forty-four countries in sub-Saharan Africa, thirty-three are designated heavily indebted poor countries by the World Bank. In 1996, sub-Saharan Africa (minus South Africa) paid $2.5 billion more in debt servicing than it got in new long-term loans and credits. The IMF alone has transferred over $3 billion out of Africa since the mid-1980s. Ethiopia has been one of the few countries to shrug off IMF intervention in their domestic economy.
The IMF has often argued that these so-called structural reforms would aid the country’s integration into the world economy, and the growth would eventually filter down to all levels. In most cases, however, they tend to destroy the domestic economy of the particular countries. Trade liberalisation and free markets sound good, but are only possible when all the world economies are at a similar level of competition. Availability of easy credit and technology make goods from developed countries more competitive than goods manufactured in the developing and poor countries. This is because, through mass production and automation of manufacturing, these big manufacturers can keep prices low. This then leads to a slow death for local industry, resulting in unemployment and a further increase in poverty levels, spelling disaster in both the social and political spheres of the country and often leading to riots and civil unrest. Since insecurity is hardly a favourable climate for any business, it results in capital outflow from the country as investors start to panic, bringing the economy even down then before. These attached social costs of macro-economic reforms, however, do not seem to find a place in the IMF’s equations, and are thus ignored.
The IMF debacle in Africa
Africa, which has the lowest figures in most development indices, including health and education, has long been the poster-child for both the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank, both created out of the UN Monetary and Financial Conference, or the Bretton-Woods Conference of 44 Allied Nations held in New Hampshire, USA on July, 1944. After the experience of the great depression of the 1930s, both these agencies were created with the objective of maintaining global macro-economic stability, while pursuing a reduction in world poverty. In reality, however, they were American-controlled agencies dedicated primarily to the rebuilding of a war-devastated Europe. This was to be done by forwarding loans to economies in distress, but essentially also attaching a few conditions alongside it. The banks were to be funded by its members, and the fund was to be distributed to the concerned areas along with an attached package of structural reforms. The age of globalisation (post-1970s), however, has insured that the reach of the IMF and World Bank has grown far and wide. They, along with the WTO (World Trade Organisation), are now in supreme control of the world economy; while largely working in the interests of the industrialised nations. Currently, Africa is indebted to the IMF by $230 billion dollars, which is the greatest barrier to its economic recovery. Half of its people live in absolute poverty, and the condition in most states has been deteriorating for the past 20 years.
Since the main donors are the US, Europe and Japan, control effectively rests with these players. But this is just one of the many reasons why the functioning of the IMF through the decades has come under immense criticism, even from its sister concern, the World Bank. Unlike the Security Council, which has a five-member veto, only the US has a veto in the IMF. That means the US govt. has supreme control over any IMF action. For example, the IMF, as a requisite for providing loans, places a lot of regulations on specific countries, like trade liberalisation and credit market de-regulation. A country which badly needs the money for development or an immediate crisis can hardly disagree on the terms. This nearly always works in favour of US and European interests, as businesses from the developed nations gain access to a new market. The argument is that reforms like opening up the economy are necessary to insure a timely payback of loans to the IMF. But then the interest burden is often too much for a country, which then has to cut back spending from essential sectors like education and health. The experience of Africa and even Asia, has shown that IMF policies tend to create a concentration of wealth among the rich few who own the industry, while making the larger population ever poorer. Real wages have come down in these countries, and credit availability has gone down, while unemployment has risen even further.
The people of Africa, originally grouped into various tribes have been, since the 17th century, subject to the onslaught of the European powers. From the early days of the slave trade, exploitation increased manifold with the industrial revolution in Europe. For sourcing raw materials and developing new markets, Africa was cut up and divided into colonies by the imperialist monarchs of Britain, France and Portugal, besides Spain, Italy and Belgium. Through subjugation of the people by forced cultivation and destroying the indigenous economies, the people were reduced to a state of acute poverty by their European masters. After the World Wars, when the European powers left, a vacuum was created in the power structure leading to a period of civil war and warlordism, practically destroying the social fabric of the continent. The fact that the continent was rich in precious minerals like diamonds and gold only worked adversely for them. Instead of being used for commerce to bolster economic development, these were used by the independent rebels to finance war.
Much of the debt accumulated by African countries was built up during the 1970s, a time of reckless lending by banks and international agencies, and was agreed to by undemocratic governments. The population of the borrowing country realised little benefit from the loans as the money disappeared in failed infrastructure projects, corrupt schemes, or unwise investments. The debt has been growing since then as governments take out new loans to pay off old ones. Currently, of the forty-four countries in sub-Saharan Africa, thirty-three are designated heavily indebted poor countries by the World Bank. In 1996, sub-Saharan Africa (minus South Africa) paid $2.5 billion more in debt servicing than it got in new long-term loans and credits. The IMF alone has transferred over $3 billion out of Africa since the mid-1980s. Ethiopia has been one of the few countries to shrug off IMF intervention in their domestic economy.
The IMF has often argued that these so-called structural reforms would aid the country’s integration into the world economy, and the growth would eventually filter down to all levels. In most cases, however, they tend to destroy the domestic economy of the particular countries. Trade liberalisation and free markets sound good, but are only possible when all the world economies are at a similar level of competition. Availability of easy credit and technology make goods from developed countries more competitive than goods manufactured in the developing and poor countries. This is because, through mass production and automation of manufacturing, these big manufacturers can keep prices low. This then leads to a slow death for local industry, resulting in unemployment and a further increase in poverty levels, spelling disaster in both the social and political spheres of the country and often leading to riots and civil unrest. Since insecurity is hardly a favourable climate for any business, it results in capital outflow from the country as investors start to panic, bringing the economy even down then before. These attached social costs of macro-economic reforms, however, do not seem to find a place in the IMF’s equations, and are thus ignored.
Trading Lankan tears for votes
The black flag march organised on Saturday, 7 February, by the Sri Lankan Tamil Protection Movement (SLTPM) was led by Vaiko (Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam - MDMK), Dr. S. Ramadoss (Pattali Makkal Katchi - PMK), Thirumavalavan (Viduthalai Ciruththaikal Katchi - VCK), D. Pandian (Communist Party of India - CPI) and the convenor of SLTPM, P. Nedumaran. The march, scheduled to start at four in the evening from Munro statue, began an hour late because the protestors took their time to organise themselves. Even as it began, it was obvious that the protestors were a loosely-held group: the march itself was not contiguous, with groups of people walking at their own pace, chanting slogans that suited each group’s way of looking at the issue. Thus, there were slogans against the governments of
The Sri Lankan Tamil Welfare Rights Forum (SLWRF) began its black flag march from the same venue as early as ten in the morning the next day. DMK and Congress cadre were still alighting en masse from vehicles decorated with respective party flags as Local Development Minister M.K. Stalin arrived to lead the march. It was a Sunday, and the effect was not lost on the cadre. The Munro statue resembled a festival ground, with people chatting off over cups of tea; breakfasts; and in some cases, early lunches. Unlike the previous days’ affair, where black flags was the norm and party ones the exception, DMK, Congress and IUML flags easily outnumbered the black flags. Yes, there was chaos, but the mayor of the city himself going around with a microphone meant that confusion was neatly packed into small groups, organised under numerous banners. The march started on time, since there was no need to add to the already-vast crowd. The previous days’ rally could be surveyed head to tail and back in ten minutes on foot; there was no question of even trying that with this one. If ever there was a study in contrasting shows of strength, this was it.
That Sunday’s march had deteriorated into an attempt to show who is in charge would be obvious from a comparison of the fag ends of both. Both ended near the Chepauk stadium, with the marchers of the first being welcomed with songs hailing the Eelam – and specifically, the LTTE; and the marchers of the second, by a huge cut-out of a smiling Stalin. On the other hand, a blown-up now-familiar photo of Muthukumar was placed at the venue on Saturday. An open jeep had replaced Saturday’s venue on Sunday, with the same journalists who had covered a similar rally only the previous evening from the comfort of their press enclosure now having to jostle in front of the vehicle for a byte. On Saturday, all the leaders of the SLTPM had spoken; only Stalin addressed the gathering the next day.
The two marches were only the last in a series of events where the government – or the DMK – came out having the upper hand. “We request everyone to stay inside as a mark of protest. Even we will not venture out – there will be no public protests either,” Nanmaran, spokesperson of the MDMK, had said on the eve of the February 4- bandh called by the SLTPM. True to his word, Nanmaran and the protestors stayed in the next day, but without any visible sign of protest on the streets, the bandh turned out to be just another working day. It was evident the SLTPM had backed down in the face of governmental pressure.
The political parties that constitute the SLTPM are tiny compared to the two big parties of the state, and it has been the support of apolitical individuals concerned about Tamils in
DMK spokesperson T.K.S. Elangovan was at pains to differentiate the party from the government. ”The government had invited all parties to take part in a dialogue on the Sri Lankan issue, which the opposition declined. The SLTPM was born only after the government had proposed a concerted effort. After the reluctance of the opposition parties to join hands with the government, the chief minister had no option but to form a new front,” he said. At the same time, he conceded that the party would have tackled the issue differently if it had been in the opposition. Confirming many analysts’ observation that the erstwhile-separatist party had been naturalised after its stint in
When Mr. Nanmaran says,”You cannot isolate the LTTE from the Tamil cause,” it becomes clear that politics in Tamil Nadu is cleaved on this issue. At the same time, the implications of this gap are unknown as no political alliance has been formed on this issue. Analysts are of the opinion that when parties say that they are “concerned about Eelam Tamils and not political alignment,” they mean just that: by creating a great deal of noise about the issue without creating effective avenues for a meaningful dialogue, the parties in Tamil Nadu are politicising the issue. For example, for all its show of defiance, the PMK has started sending feelers to the DMK hierarchy, indicating that it is not going to stay with its SLTPM buddies for long. This, for many symbolises the end of the Sri Lankan honeymoon. Few would want to reap a whirlwind this April.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Oscar nominees 2009
The carpets are rolled out, the lights are shining and the statue is glistening with much awaited glory...
On January 22nd, the
The Curious case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire and The Reader: A compelling catalogue depicting catastrophic worlds, the Oscar nominated movies are chronicles depicting lives caught in constant turmoil. Whether it is the depressing optimism of Slumdog Millionaire or the persistence of a gay activist in Milk, the movies depict the pressures and anxieties of surviving in an age that oppresses.
Take Stephen Daldry’s The Reader. Based on the book by Bernhard Schlink, it is a secret romance between a young man and an older woman, a war criminal who was an S.S. officer. A choice that leaves them both wrestling with guilt, Daldry’s depiction of fulfilled passion and guilty love, leaves the readers of the movie with a dilemma concerning thwarted choices. Kate Winslet’s serious yet tender performance has already bagged her a BAFTA (British
The Curious case of Benjamin Button, another highly acclaimed film, is a narrative about abnormality of body and time where Benjamin, played diligently by Brad Pitt, ages backwards till he dies of young age. Grappling with paradoxes of living and decaying, David Finch’s magic realist lens allows us to be a part of this unusual storytelling.
Another movie that bags the nomination is Ron Howard’s Frost/Nixon, a tense drama about a journalist’s perseverance in uncovering the lie behind the President. Frost/Nixon is a slice of political history, shared between the rigorous journalist and the conniving ex-President and Howard has attempted to be as faithful to history while crafting this movie.
Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire is also a strong contender for the Oscars for its exciting script and inspiring performances. Winner of the best film at Golden Globes and BAFTA, Slumdog Millionaire has been hailed as a trans-national and global document that records the “rags to riches” journey of one Indian chai-wala. Set in the Maximum city Mumbai, Boyle (who is known for the cult hit, Trainspotting) traverses through its slums and chronicles lives that have been festering in crime and poverty. Based on the book ‘Q and A’ by Vikas Swaroop, Boyle creates an enthralling slum saga witnessed through western novelty.
Gus Van Sant’s biopic of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in
Milk’s political cry of “I’m Harvey Milk and I want to recruit you” has bagged Sean Penn a best actor nomination. However, Mickey Rourke as the Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson in The Wrestler is an intense study of the glory and the horrors of the wrestling world. An iconic performance by Rourke revives his dwindling career as he plays ‘The Ram,’ a battered hero who once sparkled inside wrestling rings, but is a failure in outside world.
Rourke and Penn are also competing with Brad Pitt’s performance as Benjamin Button, and Frank Langella as the imposing President in Frost/Nixon.
In the best actress category, Kate Winslet leads not only with her performance in The Reader, but also her highly acclaimed but sadly not nominated contribution in the Revolutionary Road, an account of the slow erosion of the American dream. However, Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Sister Aloysius Beauvier in Doubt can give Winslet a run for her money. Streep portrays Beauvier with an upright moral righteousness and Victorian discipline that terrifies her students and staff.
A dark horse in this category could be Melissa Leo in
Similarly, a diverse range awaits the best actor in a supporting role. The nominations range from a psychotic madman to a preacher accused of sodomy, from an award winning method actor, dealing in scatological humour to a disgruntled and homophobic murderer.
Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker in the Dark Knight has earned him an Oscar nomination for the Best actor in supporting role. His dark, menacing and fiendish performance as Joker (that has previously been portrayed by Jack Nicholson) stands as a mammoth tribute to his achievements. Due to his brooding and anarchist portrayal, Ledger’s Joker was more noticeable than the movie’s eponymous hero, Batman. Joker’s maniacal laugh, distinct and tottering walk, and hideous makeup all seem to scream out that “whatever doesn't kill you simply makes you... stranger.”
Ledger’s last on-screen work, is in stiff competition with Philip Seymour Hoffman who plays Father Flynn in Doubt. Straddling innocence and guilt, Hoffaman’s performance as Father Flynn is compassionate and strong but just enough human to make us doubt. Another nomination in this category is Tropic Thunder’s Robert Downey Jr. who plays a method actor, generating laughs by his racial embodiments as the painted blackface. Josh Brolin has also nabbed a nomination for his performance in Milk, a movie about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected in a public office.
Film critics like Roger Ebert, however, have already pronounced Heath Ledger as their favourite man, who far from being a caricature is a vicious match for the title character.
Critics have also declared Viola Davis from Doubt as front runner for the best actress in the supporting role. Her minute appearance of ten minutes shakes up and stuns the audience. Other nominees include Penelope Cruz from Woody Allen’s Vicky Cristina Barcelona (who has already won a BAFTA for her performance), Amy Adams as the young and innocent nun in Doubt, Marisa Tomei as the stripper in The Wrestler, and Taraji Henson in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
When the results will be declared on February 22nd, irrespective of the wins or the losses, it will be a victory for History, which has been presented with honesty and laced with tastefulness. The nominations are stories of individual triumphs in socially evolving times and the Oscar nominations have tried to enunciate the potential of human suffering and will.
Vanshika Sahni
Monday, February 9, 2009
Serving tennis at Besant Nagar club
The vigorous strokes of rackets hitting tennis balls amid shouts of excitement and laughter can be heard from a distance. Once inside the Besant Nagar Club, the enthusiasm is as apparent as points earned from an ace.
Veterans sweat it out happily in a friendly doubles game, while the younger ones practise and train with keen focus and intent. This pleasant sight of different age-groups engaged in the increasingly popular game of tennis might seem to reflect the general mood among sport lovers across
While Somdev became a household name overnight after reaching the final of the Chennai Open, Bhupathi and Mirza won the first ever Grand Slam mixed doubles title for an Indian pair, and Bhambri won the boys singles title at the Australian Open.
These triumphs augur well for the future of Indian tennis. They are bound to give a boost to the tennis scene in Chennai, which has a rich tradition of tennis and is home to some of the biggest Indian tennis stars such as Ramanathan and Ramesh Krishnan and the Amritraj brothers.
Within Chennai, Besant Nagar Club has much to offer in terms of promoting tennis. Started in 1976, the compact premises of the club include two doubles courts and a singles court, with excellent ultra cushion synthetic turfs, which were recently laid to replace the old clay courts.
V.S. Mani, the vice-president of the club claims proudly, “We have the best coaching facilities here in Chennai. We have also consistently produced many players who have succeeded at the national level, such as Ajay Selvaraj, Rishi Sridhar and V.M. Ranjeet.” He also mentions Somdev Devvarman’s association with the club. Somdev had trained briefly at the Besant Nagar Club, while finishing his schooling in Chennai.
The brand new greyish blue synthetic courts have made the club even more sought after. They were inaugurated by the legendary Vijay Amritraj on 31st December, 2008. Mani says, “Entire courts were completely filled with children and adults and the event was covered very well by the media. Since then, there has been an increase in the number of children seeking training here.”
“The synthetic courts make play possible in all conditions. Earlier if it rained play wouldn’t be possible on the clay courts. But with synthetic courts, even if it rains, we have machines to soak up the water quickly.”
The club carried out the makeover without any sponsorship. Instead, it collected “lifetime membership fees” from its members. The amount differed for different age-groups, about Rs. 50,000 for those in their 40s, while it was half the amount for ones above 60 years of age.
Talking about champions, some future Indian tennis stars could pretty well emerge from the pool of youngsters at Besant Nagar Club. Advaith, a ten-year-old who has been training at the club for seven months, says, “The training here is good and I come here regularly.” Anshuman, a 12-year-old, has been training for four years at the club while Kavin, a 10-year-old, started off at the age of four. When asked about their idols, names of Federer and Nadal pop up immediately. When it comes to Indian tennis stars, Somdev comes out a clear favourite among them. And they all aspire to be professionals and emulate their heroes.
The potential breeding ground for future tennis stars was just a “pond in the mid 1970s,” Mani says, until the Corporation of Chennai gave the land to V. Karuppan, an I.A.S officer, who set up the club “on a no profit-no loss basis purely to promote the game of tennis and other sports.” Lacking in area, the club has focused mainly on tennis, and also houses a gym.
Stressing its excellent facilities, Mani adds, “Ours is the only club in
Rigorous training aside, what lends a special charm to the Besant Nagar club is an atmosphere of bonhomie as individuals from all walks of life, from tiny tots to the elderly get together. As Mani says, “Sometimes we even have a child playing with his grandfather.” The spirit of the family and solidarity seem to drive the members of Besant Nagar Club forward.
No Honeymoons In The Time Of Recession
No Honeymoons In The Time Of Recession
Barack Obama has an unenviable task on his hands. Not only is he staring at the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, but he has to help America pull out of two unwieldy wars. And how Obama reasserts the economic and military might of America will decide if he can preserve the unipolar world in the face of the rising economic power of China and Russia. With the exception of Franklin Roosevelt, no American president has stepped into office with such odds to surmount. But the America of Roosevelt’s time adopted a wait and watch strategy,,content to leave the global stage to Britain and other European powers ..
Obama’s first few weeks in office have been anything but spectacular. In a rash of policy initiatives, he reversed several of Bush’s unpopular policies. His decision to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison was welcomed. But his ambiguous stance on Iraq with regards to the pullout of troops inspired little confidence. His continuance of the US stance of non-criticism of Israel’s attack on Gaza signifies how entrenched America’s foreign policy position vis-à-vis the Middle East continues to remain.
On the domestic front, Obama’s appointments to the top political posts in his administration show his dependence on Washington veterans. Interestingly, he campaigned across the country as the outsider who promised a break from the politics of the past, which he said centred around compromises, deal-making and lobbying. His appointments like Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff, Tom Dashle as Health Secretary besides his own Vice President, Joe Biden are all long-time survivors of the world of Congressional politics. While this indicates a measure of pragmatism to survive in the rough and tumble of Washington politics by using these influential centrist democrats to win support for his policies, critics point out that the baggage that these politicians carry will ensure a watering down of several hard measures Obama intends to push forward.
For a president with no executive experience in governance, Obama’s actions in the first few weeks seem to be those of a man aware that people are trying to gauge his abilities as a leader. Already some of his moves have backfired; two top political appointments had to be withdrawn in the face of tax evasion charges. The financial stimulus package he has rolled out quickly, got mired in Congressional politics despite his bipartisan approach . He has been accused of “political naiveté”; for fantasizing that the Republicans would let his $937 billion package be ratified without a fight and without demanding changes to the bill.
After two weeks lost in accusations and counter-charges, Obama. has come down hard on the Republicans for their actions of the last eight years which caused the present crisis and for the time wasted believing that Fed interest rate cuts and tax cuts would do the trick. In his weekly radio address he said, “We can't rely on a losing formula that offers only tax cuts as the answer to all our problems while ignoring our fundamental economic challenges." The Democrats have turned increasingly aggressive, with Obama even resorting to a campaign-style approach to selling his stimulus package to the American people.
Obama’s plans also include creation of jobs through increasing spending on public infrastructure works.The Republicans call it “wasteful government spending”. The difficulty with which he got the stimulus package cleared by Congress bodes more trouble for him as he mulls a much bigger $1 trillion bailout package for banks and financial institutions (the Bush Administration’s earlier $350 million loan has been found to be woefully inadequate). With the Republicans unwilling to shed their dogmatic belief in minimal state involvement and regulation of the economy, the taunts are beginning to appear in the conservative media calling Obama a “socialist”.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the recession would be that Obama will be forced to temporarily defer one of his major election planks that called for a comprehensive reform of the country’s health system. A large population running into millions is unable to access healthcare because of the virtual absence of a public health system, the high cost of private healthcare and the failure of the medical insurance system to encompass the poorer sections of society. Coupled with job losses, wiping out of pension funds and home losses, the lack of health care adds to the worries of families caught in the recession. It would be foolhardy to ignore this constituency as they voted overwhelmingly for Obama to bring about the change he constantly promised. His next campaign for a second term in office will have to begin in two years.
The start of America’s financial crisis began with Bush’s invasion of Iraq and as the war stretched on, his administration ignored the visible signs of the recession, pumping dollars into the war instead of the flagging economy. The war also catapulted Obama’s meteoric rise with his consistent voting record in the Senate against the Iraq War, winning him the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton and ultimately the US Presidency. But pulling US troops out of that country seems an impossibility as Iraq continues to witness sectarian clashes while the NATO troops act as mediators in one sense and onlookers in another. The only feasible strategy for him is to pull the US out from a winning position somewhere down the line; 16 months he says, but Iraq’s peace will remain shattered long after the US is gone.
Obama’s intensification of the American involvement in Afghanistan holds little merit, as the Taliban will continue to resist the outsiders, with or without Pakistan’s support. Obama’s denial of the fact that America built the monster of Islamic fundamentalism signifies his inability to set a fresh agenda for US-Arab reconciliation. Its manipulation in some cases and indifference in others, on the pretext of fighting Russia has thrown several Muslim nations into disarray and destroyed the secular political aspirations that promised to arise in these countries. Obama has a chance to leave a lasting impact on Pakistan, by supporting the renascent democracy there. His appointment of Richard Holbrooke, who helped resolve the Northern Ireland conflict, as special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is hopeful indication of a creative solution arising in the trouble-torn region.
Obama’s foreign policy challenge lies in restoring America as the de-facto leader of the world, by engaging nations on an equal footing while getting them all to acknowledge that the unipolar world continues. For this, he will have to pull his weight in Europe which has come out of America’s shadow. Bush lacked both the credibility and the chutzpah to hold under his wings Europe’s colourful but strong-willed political bosses like Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown. With Russia’s resurgence and Europe’s new found closeness to Russia on the back of oil ties, Obama has to actively engage the formidable combination of Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev as equals – something he has managed to signal through Vice-President Biden at a security conference in Munich, and to which the Russians responded positively.
To be fair to Obama, his term in office will be entirely taken up dousing the fires, fed and left untended by the previous regime. Obama’s inaugural address probably showed the true face of the man – a pragmatic politician, able to address all classes of people in American society - the whites, black, women, the aged, the patriots, the capitalists, the labour class, the middle class, soldiers and war veterans. But his speech also had several mentions of socialist ideas – ideas that a lot of America equates with communism. The conservative media potshots have already begun, the Republican war cries are out, and every policy, every word of his is under scrutiny. Clinton tried to please everyone, Bush refused to engage anyone. Obama has to find that middle path between conciliation and assertion. He can’t afford to fall – if his policies fail, the multi-polar world of yore will return; and with it a host of new problems.
Barack Obama has an unenviable task on his hands. Not only is he staring at the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, but he has to help America pull out of two unwieldy wars. And how Obama reasserts the economic and military might of America will decide if he can preserve the unipolar world in the face of the rising economic power of China and Russia. With the exception of Franklin Roosevelt, no American president has stepped into office with such odds to surmount. But the America of Roosevelt’s time adopted a wait and watch strategy,,content to leave the global stage to Britain and other European powers ..
Obama’s first few weeks in office have been anything but spectacular. In a rash of policy initiatives, he reversed several of Bush’s unpopular policies. His decision to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison was welcomed. But his ambiguous stance on Iraq with regards to the pullout of troops inspired little confidence. His continuance of the US stance of non-criticism of Israel’s attack on Gaza signifies how entrenched America’s foreign policy position vis-à-vis the Middle East continues to remain.
On the domestic front, Obama’s appointments to the top political posts in his administration show his dependence on Washington veterans. Interestingly, he campaigned across the country as the outsider who promised a break from the politics of the past, which he said centred around compromises, deal-making and lobbying. His appointments like Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff, Tom Dashle as Health Secretary besides his own Vice President, Joe Biden are all long-time survivors of the world of Congressional politics. While this indicates a measure of pragmatism to survive in the rough and tumble of Washington politics by using these influential centrist democrats to win support for his policies, critics point out that the baggage that these politicians carry will ensure a watering down of several hard measures Obama intends to push forward.
For a president with no executive experience in governance, Obama’s actions in the first few weeks seem to be those of a man aware that people are trying to gauge his abilities as a leader. Already some of his moves have backfired; two top political appointments had to be withdrawn in the face of tax evasion charges. The financial stimulus package he has rolled out quickly, got mired in Congressional politics despite his bipartisan approach . He has been accused of “political naiveté”; for fantasizing that the Republicans would let his $937 billion package be ratified without a fight and without demanding changes to the bill.
After two weeks lost in accusations and counter-charges, Obama. has come down hard on the Republicans for their actions of the last eight years which caused the present crisis and for the time wasted believing that Fed interest rate cuts and tax cuts would do the trick. In his weekly radio address he said, “We can't rely on a losing formula that offers only tax cuts as the answer to all our problems while ignoring our fundamental economic challenges." The Democrats have turned increasingly aggressive, with Obama even resorting to a campaign-style approach to selling his stimulus package to the American people.
Obama’s plans also include creation of jobs through increasing spending on public infrastructure works.The Republicans call it “wasteful government spending”. The difficulty with which he got the stimulus package cleared by Congress bodes more trouble for him as he mulls a much bigger $1 trillion bailout package for banks and financial institutions (the Bush Administration’s earlier $350 million loan has been found to be woefully inadequate). With the Republicans unwilling to shed their dogmatic belief in minimal state involvement and regulation of the economy, the taunts are beginning to appear in the conservative media calling Obama a “socialist”.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the recession would be that Obama will be forced to temporarily defer one of his major election planks that called for a comprehensive reform of the country’s health system. A large population running into millions is unable to access healthcare because of the virtual absence of a public health system, the high cost of private healthcare and the failure of the medical insurance system to encompass the poorer sections of society. Coupled with job losses, wiping out of pension funds and home losses, the lack of health care adds to the worries of families caught in the recession. It would be foolhardy to ignore this constituency as they voted overwhelmingly for Obama to bring about the change he constantly promised. His next campaign for a second term in office will have to begin in two years.
The start of America’s financial crisis began with Bush’s invasion of Iraq and as the war stretched on, his administration ignored the visible signs of the recession, pumping dollars into the war instead of the flagging economy. The war also catapulted Obama’s meteoric rise with his consistent voting record in the Senate against the Iraq War, winning him the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton and ultimately the US Presidency. But pulling US troops out of that country seems an impossibility as Iraq continues to witness sectarian clashes while the NATO troops act as mediators in one sense and onlookers in another. The only feasible strategy for him is to pull the US out from a winning position somewhere down the line; 16 months he says, but Iraq’s peace will remain shattered long after the US is gone.
Obama’s intensification of the American involvement in Afghanistan holds little merit, as the Taliban will continue to resist the outsiders, with or without Pakistan’s support. Obama’s denial of the fact that America built the monster of Islamic fundamentalism signifies his inability to set a fresh agenda for US-Arab reconciliation. Its manipulation in some cases and indifference in others, on the pretext of fighting Russia has thrown several Muslim nations into disarray and destroyed the secular political aspirations that promised to arise in these countries. Obama has a chance to leave a lasting impact on Pakistan, by supporting the renascent democracy there. His appointment of Richard Holbrooke, who helped resolve the Northern Ireland conflict, as special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is hopeful indication of a creative solution arising in the trouble-torn region.
Obama’s foreign policy challenge lies in restoring America as the de-facto leader of the world, by engaging nations on an equal footing while getting them all to acknowledge that the unipolar world continues. For this, he will have to pull his weight in Europe which has come out of America’s shadow. Bush lacked both the credibility and the chutzpah to hold under his wings Europe’s colourful but strong-willed political bosses like Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown. With Russia’s resurgence and Europe’s new found closeness to Russia on the back of oil ties, Obama has to actively engage the formidable combination of Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev as equals – something he has managed to signal through Vice-President Biden at a security conference in Munich, and to which the Russians responded positively.
To be fair to Obama, his term in office will be entirely taken up dousing the fires, fed and left untended by the previous regime. Obama’s inaugural address probably showed the true face of the man – a pragmatic politician, able to address all classes of people in American society - the whites, black, women, the aged, the patriots, the capitalists, the labour class, the middle class, soldiers and war veterans. But his speech also had several mentions of socialist ideas – ideas that a lot of America equates with communism. The conservative media potshots have already begun, the Republican war cries are out, and every policy, every word of his is under scrutiny. Clinton tried to please everyone, Bush refused to engage anyone. Obama has to find that middle path between conciliation and assertion. He can’t afford to fall – if his policies fail, the multi-polar world of yore will return; and with it a host of new problems.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Appeasing Israel, Annoying Palestine
Amit Kumar
The war between Israel and Palestine is far from over. The recent attacks on Gaza by Israel have reiterated this. While the residents of Gaza try to recover from yet another ghastly attack and mourn the death of around 800 innocents, back in India, questions need to be raised about the role of the Indian government and the marked shift in its policies towards the troubled region.
India’s stance on the attack on Gaza was at best measured. Calling for a peaceful solution to the dispute and condemning the killing of civilians, it has stayed clear of blaming the Israeli government for the killings. Worryingly, this statement was strikingly similar to the US view., It blamed the elected government of Hamas for its actions which “forced” Israel to retaliate.
The current stand of the Indian government is a huge departure from the time when there were virtually no diplomatic ties between the two countries. It would be naïve to ignore the developments of Indo-Israel ties in the last 16 years. Analysts see this growing closeness as part of India’s larger plans of forging closer ties with the United States, which continues to be Israel’s closest ally. Israel also sees India as an important ally, given the hostility it faces in the gulf and the Arab regions. This also explains its close ties with China.
There are other reasons for this new found affinity amongst the two countries., Always a firm supporter of the Palestinian cause, thanks primarily to a shared colonial past,. India, was the first non-Arab country to recognize PLO’s authority as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.” The Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was one of the most respected international leaders in the country. Moreover, the support for the Palestinian cause was an attempt by the Indian government to improve its ties with the Muslim countries of the world after partition.
There could be many reasons for the setbacks Indian efforts to support the Palestinian cause have suffered. India’s support has never translated into reciprocal support for India from the Arab countries, save Iraq in the past and Syria. Pakistan on the other hand, has utilized the Organization of Islamic countries forum to garner support on Kashmir. Moreover, the Indian government has always maintained that the beginning of its diplomatic ties with Israel should not be seen in isolation. As early as the 1970s, Egypt, by far the most powerful Arab nation, had entered into negotiations with Israel.
Apart from this, the Students Islamic Movement of India, a major supporter of the Palestinian cause, is now banned in the country, although for completely different reasons. The death of Yasser Arafat, and subsequent differences between the two major political parties, Fatah and Hamas, seem to have deterred the real cause of the Palestinian movement. Also, following the increase in militant activities in the country, India has maintained a tough attitude towards all militant organizations, Hamas included.
At the same time, India seems to be relying heavily on the Israeli government, in its attempt to fight militancy in the country,. Israel is all set to replace Russia as the largest arms supplier to India, unheard of a decade ago. The so called fight against terrorism, which seems the most powerful unifying call in the world right now, has also brought India and Israel closer.
These developments will have serious consequences. India cannot talk of support to the Palestinian cause, and yet fill the coffers of the Israeli government. Palestine, which initially had no problems with Indo-Israel relations, has now begun to take notice. In 2006, Palestinian authorities reacted strongly to the statement of its own president, Mahmoud Abbas that the Palestinians had no objection to the growth of Indo-Israel ties. Palestine has always been a passionate subject for the 150-million strong Muslim community in India. The Indian government should, at its own peril, think of taking such a pro-Israel stand, and alienate the already marginalized Muslims of the country. Also, in the wake of the recent attacks on Mumbai, the right wing parties have called for attacks on the neighbouring country, similar to what Israel has done to Palestine. Such statements are made by myopic people, for very controversial, small-term gains (if any). For one thing, Pakistan is far better equipped than the rebels in Gaza and the West Bank. And more importantly, 60 years of war in the area has sown seeds for further, more damaging wars, and like a vicious circle this will continue.
Palestine is not the struggle for a territory. Nor is it a fight for the supremacy of one religion over the other. It stands for the creation of a just, fair society where the people take their own decisions. On the contrary, Israel seems to encourage the demolition of any form of dissent. Its system is a dangerous one to follow. The Indian government, to achieve small term gains, is challenging the decisions of our former policy-makers. In this case, and in the case of Sri Lanka, her blind support of the stronger, authoritarian powers can have serious consequences. India seems to be inviting the wrath of far too many people for its flawed international policies. This, coupled by the way it is handling internal security problems (the north-east insurgency, the rise of extremism, the naxalites, the Kashmir issue, and the application of draconian laws, especially on the minorities) is slowly pushing India into an abyss, coming out of which might be an impossible proposition. Condemning Israel, for its fascist activities and reverting to the idea of a free Palestine would go a long way in addressing some of the issues plaguing this country.
The war between Israel and Palestine is far from over. The recent attacks on Gaza by Israel have reiterated this. While the residents of Gaza try to recover from yet another ghastly attack and mourn the death of around 800 innocents, back in India, questions need to be raised about the role of the Indian government and the marked shift in its policies towards the troubled region.
India’s stance on the attack on Gaza was at best measured. Calling for a peaceful solution to the dispute and condemning the killing of civilians, it has stayed clear of blaming the Israeli government for the killings. Worryingly, this statement was strikingly similar to the US view., It blamed the elected government of Hamas for its actions which “forced” Israel to retaliate.
The current stand of the Indian government is a huge departure from the time when there were virtually no diplomatic ties between the two countries. It would be naïve to ignore the developments of Indo-Israel ties in the last 16 years. Analysts see this growing closeness as part of India’s larger plans of forging closer ties with the United States, which continues to be Israel’s closest ally. Israel also sees India as an important ally, given the hostility it faces in the gulf and the Arab regions. This also explains its close ties with China.
There are other reasons for this new found affinity amongst the two countries., Always a firm supporter of the Palestinian cause, thanks primarily to a shared colonial past,. India, was the first non-Arab country to recognize PLO’s authority as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.” The Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was one of the most respected international leaders in the country. Moreover, the support for the Palestinian cause was an attempt by the Indian government to improve its ties with the Muslim countries of the world after partition.
There could be many reasons for the setbacks Indian efforts to support the Palestinian cause have suffered. India’s support has never translated into reciprocal support for India from the Arab countries, save Iraq in the past and Syria. Pakistan on the other hand, has utilized the Organization of Islamic countries forum to garner support on Kashmir. Moreover, the Indian government has always maintained that the beginning of its diplomatic ties with Israel should not be seen in isolation. As early as the 1970s, Egypt, by far the most powerful Arab nation, had entered into negotiations with Israel.
Apart from this, the Students Islamic Movement of India, a major supporter of the Palestinian cause, is now banned in the country, although for completely different reasons. The death of Yasser Arafat, and subsequent differences between the two major political parties, Fatah and Hamas, seem to have deterred the real cause of the Palestinian movement. Also, following the increase in militant activities in the country, India has maintained a tough attitude towards all militant organizations, Hamas included.
At the same time, India seems to be relying heavily on the Israeli government, in its attempt to fight militancy in the country,. Israel is all set to replace Russia as the largest arms supplier to India, unheard of a decade ago. The so called fight against terrorism, which seems the most powerful unifying call in the world right now, has also brought India and Israel closer.
These developments will have serious consequences. India cannot talk of support to the Palestinian cause, and yet fill the coffers of the Israeli government. Palestine, which initially had no problems with Indo-Israel relations, has now begun to take notice. In 2006, Palestinian authorities reacted strongly to the statement of its own president, Mahmoud Abbas that the Palestinians had no objection to the growth of Indo-Israel ties. Palestine has always been a passionate subject for the 150-million strong Muslim community in India. The Indian government should, at its own peril, think of taking such a pro-Israel stand, and alienate the already marginalized Muslims of the country. Also, in the wake of the recent attacks on Mumbai, the right wing parties have called for attacks on the neighbouring country, similar to what Israel has done to Palestine. Such statements are made by myopic people, for very controversial, small-term gains (if any). For one thing, Pakistan is far better equipped than the rebels in Gaza and the West Bank. And more importantly, 60 years of war in the area has sown seeds for further, more damaging wars, and like a vicious circle this will continue.
Palestine is not the struggle for a territory. Nor is it a fight for the supremacy of one religion over the other. It stands for the creation of a just, fair society where the people take their own decisions. On the contrary, Israel seems to encourage the demolition of any form of dissent. Its system is a dangerous one to follow. The Indian government, to achieve small term gains, is challenging the decisions of our former policy-makers. In this case, and in the case of Sri Lanka, her blind support of the stronger, authoritarian powers can have serious consequences. India seems to be inviting the wrath of far too many people for its flawed international policies. This, coupled by the way it is handling internal security problems (the north-east insurgency, the rise of extremism, the naxalites, the Kashmir issue, and the application of draconian laws, especially on the minorities) is slowly pushing India into an abyss, coming out of which might be an impossible proposition. Condemning Israel, for its fascist activities and reverting to the idea of a free Palestine would go a long way in addressing some of the issues plaguing this country.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Slumdog Blues
To travel, and to look up in wonder at new cultures, is indeed a virtue. It is when you look for something with an agenda in mind that problems arise. Such problems are not new – colonisation was a mix of wonder and commercial aspirations.
To make a good movie is looking at the art itself with wonder, but wanting to make a good movie about
“What works for the West may not necessarily work for India,” Madhur Singh, writing for the Time magazine hit the nail on the head while commenting on the lukewarm response to “Slumdog Millionaire” in India (Slumdog Millionaire, an Oscar Favorite, Is No Hit in India; January 26, 2009). There is a sense of “so what?” as you watch the supposed classic. Brilliant as it may be, the cinematography of Anthony Dod Mantel captures nothing more than what a pair of eyes never fail to steer clear of in this country.
In retrospect, making the characters speak English, that too, in British accent may not have been a bad idea, after all. It is only a natural extension of looking at the oriental from your perch, and it helps immensely if the exotic can be made to speak in your tongue. Also, imagine Mr. Boyle spending valuable time and resources in research, only to come up with the same script in Hindi, which would, of course, flop worldwide trying to look like a cheap version of “Salaam Bombay.” Now at least “the world is watching.”
Bi/multi-linguals are not new to the Indian movie industry, but they were always made with a certain degree of sensitivity. The standardisation of language in “Slumdog” is pathetic; it assumes that a mass of people will pass up the fact that our chaai-waalahs rarely speak fluent English, rarer still, with a British accent. The use of Hindi is merely an ornament – probably for lack of good translators, Hindi expletives had to be retained in an otherwise-English torture sequence.
But of course, Bollywood cannot wash its hands over this attempt at standardisation, for it is guilty of doing the same to the various dialects of Hindi. Bollywood, though can claim that it was denied many Oscars in the past in the event of “Slumdog” winning any. Even though music is no concern of mine, it can be said with confidence that A.R. Rahman can woe the many missed Oscars if he receives one this time.
The movie itself, as many would agree, is entertaining like Vikas Swarup’s “Q&A” on which it is based. It is fast-paced, tells an interesting story told in well shot frames with Rahman’s music to boot. The children are cute; the violence, shocking. In other words, typical Bollywood fare. For those who never saw that before, “The film's universal appeal will present the real
Maybe he was too engrossed in drawing up the perfect tourist guide that Danny Boyle forgot that something different was expected of him. Nothing changes in the movie – the old stereotypes are maintained and clichés preserved for a sequel. Freida Pinto remains a prop, which would have been no different had it been another Indian movie. Salim’s change of heart at the end is unconvincing, so are the death sequence and the cryptic “God is great” line, which pretty much adds nothing. Simon Beaufoy has done a commendable adaptation for the screen, but the western world’s attitude to Muslims is telling in the change of name of Mr. Swarup’s protagonist from Ram Mohammed Thomas to Jamal Malik.
It is sad to note that for all the talk of meritocracy, good marketing makes good cinema. As things stand, “Slumdog” is poised to win multiple Oscars. One merely hopes that this inspires a new crop of filmmakers to tell the world that there is more to
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)