By Neeta Lal
If you've been planning to visit India - whether to soak up Goa's splendiferous sands or ogle the Taj Mahal - now's a good time to pack your bags. Hotel tariffs have plummeted by a whopping 30%, the Indian government has unleashed a raft of tourist-friendly sops and travel agents and airlines are offering great bargains.
With the portentous mix of a global economic slowdown and terror attacks eroding the growth of tourist arrivals in India, tourism has taken a beating. The Mumbai terror attacks on November 26, industry experts rue, have ruined the tourism season just as it was unfurling. As a result, compared to the 30% growth in the sector in 2007 - and double-digit growth for the past five years - the country is expected to post a tourist arrival increase of zilch this year.
This is a contrast from 2007, during which India witnessed a record number of visitors from abroad and a sharp rise in foreign exchange earnings through tourism. The number of foreign tourists in India touched a record 5 million in 2007, an increase of 12% from 2006. The estimated tourism earnings in 2007 were US$11.96 billion, compared to $8.93 billion in 2006.
This year, even till August, things weren't actually so bad. Foreign arrivals had increased 10.4% compared with the corresponding period last year. The foreign exchange earnings during the same period rose 21.5%. Buoyed with this growth, the industry had set itself an ambitious target to more than double the number of arrivals to 10 million by 2010, when New Delhi will host the Commonwealth Games.
But all this looks unachievable now due to a combination of factors, including a plunge in the number of arrivals for the first time in six years by 2.1% in November, traditionally regarded as the beginning of the high season. The number of visitors in November nose-dived from 532,000 in 2007 to 521,000, while the corresponding foreign exchange earnings from visitors dipped by 12.5% to $1 billion.
To make matters worse, in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks, almost 50% of bulk bookings by visitors (largely from Britain, Europe and the US) were cancelled. Travel advisories issued by the US, Britain, Australia, Canada and Singapore advising against travel to India did nothing to help things. According to Himmat Anand, co-chair of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry's tourism committee, along with corporate bookings which usually plunge at this time, no fresh bookings have been forthcoming. "India has suddenly disappeared from overseas tourists' itineraries this year," he said.
What has further aggravated the situation is that on account of a record tourist turnout last year, operators had invested heavily in infrastructure upgrades and renovations which are now cumulatively adding to their losses. "This has been one of the worst times for Indian tourism in recent history," said Anil Kalsi, chairman (northern region) of the Travel Agents Association of India.
With panic buttons buzzing everywhere, the Ministry of Tourism has been forced to take urgent steps to increase footfalls to the country. It is now working on a war footing with trade associations and airlines to push up visitor numbers through a slew of measures. The Ministry of Tourism has set up state-level committees comprised of representatives from trade associations and ministries to look into various aspects of tourism management. Tourism Minister Ambika Soni has also urged governments of various countries not to issue travel advisories against India, simultaneously sending out a message of reassurance to the world community that India is a "safe" destination.
To prevent the sector from plunging into further gloom, the Tourism Ministry is also working proactively with travel operators to revitalize inbound tourist traffic. As a part of the "promote India campaign", for instance, tour operators have been asked to pair hotel tariffs with airfares and offer attractive incentives to visitors. Those who visit India this year will be offered sops like discounted packages for rural tourism, adventure tourism and wellness tourism on their next visit. Tour operators are also offering to sponsor at least 1,000 tourism industry reps to take a free trip to India for discussions.
Meanwhile, the ministry is working out the modalities of giving visas to tourists on arrival to further encourage unencumbered travel to India. It is also fleshing out 22 new mega tourism destinations across the country at an outlay of 250 million rupees (US$5.1 million) to 1 billion rupees for each destination, to infuse novelty into visitors' itineraries. To give rural tourism a push, 130 more villages have been identified as templates to showcase India's heterogeneous culture. Financial support to tour operators promoting India in the international arena has also been ratcheted up.
The government would do well to fire on all cylinders, considering that after the Mumbai massacre group bookings to popular tourist destinations like Goa, Jaipur and Kerala have plummeted remarkably. "The meltdown mayhem coupled with Mumbai's terror attacks have severely impacted Indian tourism," said Subhash Goyal, erstwhile president of Indian Association of Tour Operators. "It has had a cascading effect down the hospitality chain - from travel agents to the airlines to car rental companies to the hotels."
Five-star hotel tariffs in Delhi have hit an all-time low. A room can now be had in the range of 8,000 rupees to 10,000 rupees, even though the same room fetched between 12,000 to 15,000 rupees last year. Ergo, to create demand, many hotels and resorts are offering a "Global Meltdown Tariff" which knocks off 30% off the normal fare.
However, despite a raft of measures taken by the government and the hospitality sector to rejuvenate inbound tourism, industry players are still a tad wary about the Christmas-New Year season, which accounts for the bulk of their annual business.
"Ironically, this is the time when trade is [usually] booming," said Prateek Ghai of Globe Travels, a New-Delhi based travel agency. "But this time, due to a combination of factors, things are looking far too bleak!"
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Nepal Caught in Vortex of Regional Rivalry
By Nishi Thapa
The terror attack on Mumbai on November 26 quickly developed into renewed rivalry between India and Pakistan, and small Nepal has been dragged into the controversy. The latest dispute, focusing on the lone survivor among the 10 terrorists, is a case in point.
Nepal's Foreign Ministry issued a statement on December 19 stating that the man, Ajmal Kasab, was "neither arrested in Nepal nor was he handed over to any other country". This reaction came in the context of a Pakistani media report which earlier claimed that Kasab was arrested by Nepali police in 2005, and was quietly handed over to Indian authorities.
According to a claim made by a Pakistani lawyer, C M Faruque, Kasab was kept by Indian security, together with other Pakistani detainees.
"The people arrested in Nepal had gone there on legal visas for business, but Indian agencies are in the habit of capturing Pakistanis from Nepal and afterwards implicating them in Mumbai-like incidents to malign Pakistan," the lawyer was quoted as saying. Indian officials described these allegations as sheer propaganda. But this report was picked up by some Indian media outlets, including The Asian Age newspaper.
While this Nepali official's stand has helped Indian authorities maintain their original contention that the terrorists came from Pakistan to Mumbai via a sea route, there have been several occasions in the past when New Delhi has alleged that Nepal has become a den of terrorists sponsored by Pakistan's intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
There have also been cases in which New Delhi has complained that Nepali authorities did not take action against Pakistani visitors who were allegedly involved in the circulation of fake Indian currency. Pakistan's contention has been that it is prepared to cooperate when Nepali authorities can produce concrete proof of the involvement of Pakistani nationals in unlawful activities.
If a distant neighbor like Pakistan finds it useful to keep its intelligence agency "active" in Nepal, it can be assumed that India's external intelligence service, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), is "very active". China's intelligence agency is also likely to be involved.
The presence of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also cannot be ruled out. The British are also quite adept in handling their discreet spy network in a beneficial manner.
Who could be better placed to perceive such movements than Maoist leader Prachanda, who as prime minister heads Nepal's interim coalition. Prachanda revealed to journalists last week that what outwardly looked like a quarrel among political parties was in fact a confrontation between external forces.
What he did not concede is that the primary reason for enhanced external interest in Nepal is the rise of the Maoist brand of communism in the Himalayan country.
India's first official reaction on the Mumbai carnage came from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who blamed "outsiders" for their role in the tragic event in which nearly 200 people were killed. He then went on to warn "neighbors" of consequences if they continued to allow terrorists to use their territory. While Manmohan did not leave any doubt that Pakistan was the first target, his statement expressed New Delhi's suspicion that smaller countries around India also had to share the blame.
In an article appearing in the December 19 edition of Indian magazine Frontline, a writer said blaming Pakistan was a "convenient option" for India. If this comment is taken at face value, one can conclude that blaming smaller neighbors like Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka is even more convenient. This has been the case from time to time.
New Delhi's insistence that Kathmandu should enter a new extradition treaty with India is being seen in this context. One of the provisions of the proposed treaty requires the Nepali authorities to hand over to India suspects who could be citizens of other countries living or working in Nepal.
Kathmandu has not agreed to this pact so far in view of the concerns from Pakistan and China, among others. The existing extradition treaty, signed in 1953, is seen as anachronistic by New Delhi. Surprisingly, Indians do not take an interest in abrogating the more controversial friendship treaty signed in 1950. Almost all of Nepal's political parties have publicly described this pact as "unequal".
Nepal remains in an unenviable situation whereby it must assure its immediate neighbors that it won't allow its soil to be used by the foes of friendly neighbors. Beijing's concerns are directed to Tibetan exiles - including those sneaking in from their bases in India. India's worries revolve around Nepal's possible bid to use the "China card" as well as Pakistan's perceived attempt to use Nepali territory for deadly ISI-funded Muslim schemes against India. Pakistan, a nuclear power, and an ally of both China and the United States, would obviously be concerned were its nationals visiting Nepal not provided with basic courtesy and security.
The Nepali intelligentsia is concerned with a thorny question: if Nepal's precious time and scarce resources have to be utilized merely to address concerns of others, when will Nepal get a chance to look after its own safety, security and welfare?
History suggests that New Delhi often disregards what it preaches to others. For example, it sends armed security units inside Nepal to pick up suspected persons before their cases are tried in Nepal's courts. One striking example of this surfaced in February, when Nepali police officials handed over an absconding doctor who was allegedly running a major kidney transplant racket. Amit Kumar would have been transferred to India after the completion of extradition procedures, but New Delhi used diplomatic channels to take the suspect out of Nepal.
Former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala ordered Nepal police to hand over the suspect to Indian authorities without any legal basis. Koirala's friendly gesture was later reciprocated by New Delhi during April elections when India's national security advisor, M K Narayanan, used a television channel to extend India's support to Koirala and his party. That such support did not help him get re-elected prime minister is another story.
"We never put all our eggs in any [one] basket," Narayanan said in a September interview published in The Week magazine. While this statement was made in the context of Pakistan, it sends a pithy message to all in the region.
While Narayanan was spared from the humiliation of home minister Shivaraj Patil, who was forced to resign in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, security experts do not doubt the failure of India's intelligence apparatus. Conversations that this writer had with incumbent and former security officials in Nepal suggest that New Delhi is currently attempting to cover up its failure.
To accuse Pakistan without any empirical, credible evidence is clearly an attempt to divert the attention of the Indian public. Pakistan is fighting terrorists along its border with Afghanistan and is unsuccessfully engaged with terrorism within its own territory. Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari has offered a joint investigation on the Mumbai incident and has pledged to take action if non-state players in his country are found to have been involved in the attacks.
As officials in India continue to play the blame game, independent Indian experts and analysts do not approve of methods which might prove expedient in the short term.
"Experts on the issue of terrorism say that blaming Pakistan will be a convenient option," wrote John Cherian of Frontline magazine on December 19. Such a policy is bound to raise tensions and derail the peace process being pursued through what has been billed as bilateral dialogue. Brahma Chellaney, often perceived as a hawkish strategist, also thinks it prudent to employ options of diplomatic, economic and political orientation. "Between the two extremes - inaction and military action - lie a hundred different options," Chellaney wrote in The Hindu, on December 20.
A democratic country's actions naturally must be sane, humane and transparent to the highest extent possible. It was probably lack of transparency which led Indian minister, Abdul Rahman Antulay, to raise doubts about the the killing of a security official who was heading an anti-terrorism squad. "Anyone going to the roots of terror has always been a target," the Indian media quoted the minister as saying. Antulay's party was embarrassed at his suspicion of foul play and the opposition criticized the Muslim minister for saying something which could help Pakistan.
Nepali people are reminded of the hijacking of an Indian aircraft exactly nine years ago on December 24, 1999. The New Delhi-bound flight from Kathmandu was hijacked minutes after take off and was relinquished in Kandahar, Afghanistan, a week later. New Delhi was prompt to punish Kathmandu: suspending Indian Airline services for several months for its lax security. When flights were resumed, Nepal was forced to accept Indian security personnel frisking passengers at Kathmandu airport.
India even labelled a Nepali passenger as one of the hijackers. Later, when this could not be proved, India did not offer any apology for the mistake. Madan Lal Khurana, a minister in the government of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, said publicly in April 2006 that some of the "inside information" he possessed about the 1999 hijacking was "sensational". He promised to reveal details of the behind-the-scenes activity at an appropriate time.
Nepal's strategic location makes its stability vital in regard to containing possible attacks on neighboring nations. As such, many Nepali analysts feel that alleged foreign meddling in the country's domestic politics should come to an end.
This is something even Indian politicians admit from time to time.
"Keeping in view past experiences with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, it is better that we keep away from the internal affairs of that country," Indian parliamentarian S Sudhakar Reddy told the press after returning from an official visit to Nepal in June 2006.
The terror attack on Mumbai on November 26 quickly developed into renewed rivalry between India and Pakistan, and small Nepal has been dragged into the controversy. The latest dispute, focusing on the lone survivor among the 10 terrorists, is a case in point.
Nepal's Foreign Ministry issued a statement on December 19 stating that the man, Ajmal Kasab, was "neither arrested in Nepal nor was he handed over to any other country". This reaction came in the context of a Pakistani media report which earlier claimed that Kasab was arrested by Nepali police in 2005, and was quietly handed over to Indian authorities.
According to a claim made by a Pakistani lawyer, C M Faruque, Kasab was kept by Indian security, together with other Pakistani detainees.
"The people arrested in Nepal had gone there on legal visas for business, but Indian agencies are in the habit of capturing Pakistanis from Nepal and afterwards implicating them in Mumbai-like incidents to malign Pakistan," the lawyer was quoted as saying. Indian officials described these allegations as sheer propaganda. But this report was picked up by some Indian media outlets, including The Asian Age newspaper.
While this Nepali official's stand has helped Indian authorities maintain their original contention that the terrorists came from Pakistan to Mumbai via a sea route, there have been several occasions in the past when New Delhi has alleged that Nepal has become a den of terrorists sponsored by Pakistan's intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
There have also been cases in which New Delhi has complained that Nepali authorities did not take action against Pakistani visitors who were allegedly involved in the circulation of fake Indian currency. Pakistan's contention has been that it is prepared to cooperate when Nepali authorities can produce concrete proof of the involvement of Pakistani nationals in unlawful activities.
If a distant neighbor like Pakistan finds it useful to keep its intelligence agency "active" in Nepal, it can be assumed that India's external intelligence service, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), is "very active". China's intelligence agency is also likely to be involved.
The presence of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also cannot be ruled out. The British are also quite adept in handling their discreet spy network in a beneficial manner.
Who could be better placed to perceive such movements than Maoist leader Prachanda, who as prime minister heads Nepal's interim coalition. Prachanda revealed to journalists last week that what outwardly looked like a quarrel among political parties was in fact a confrontation between external forces.
What he did not concede is that the primary reason for enhanced external interest in Nepal is the rise of the Maoist brand of communism in the Himalayan country.
India's first official reaction on the Mumbai carnage came from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who blamed "outsiders" for their role in the tragic event in which nearly 200 people were killed. He then went on to warn "neighbors" of consequences if they continued to allow terrorists to use their territory. While Manmohan did not leave any doubt that Pakistan was the first target, his statement expressed New Delhi's suspicion that smaller countries around India also had to share the blame.
In an article appearing in the December 19 edition of Indian magazine Frontline, a writer said blaming Pakistan was a "convenient option" for India. If this comment is taken at face value, one can conclude that blaming smaller neighbors like Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka is even more convenient. This has been the case from time to time.
New Delhi's insistence that Kathmandu should enter a new extradition treaty with India is being seen in this context. One of the provisions of the proposed treaty requires the Nepali authorities to hand over to India suspects who could be citizens of other countries living or working in Nepal.
Kathmandu has not agreed to this pact so far in view of the concerns from Pakistan and China, among others. The existing extradition treaty, signed in 1953, is seen as anachronistic by New Delhi. Surprisingly, Indians do not take an interest in abrogating the more controversial friendship treaty signed in 1950. Almost all of Nepal's political parties have publicly described this pact as "unequal".
Nepal remains in an unenviable situation whereby it must assure its immediate neighbors that it won't allow its soil to be used by the foes of friendly neighbors. Beijing's concerns are directed to Tibetan exiles - including those sneaking in from their bases in India. India's worries revolve around Nepal's possible bid to use the "China card" as well as Pakistan's perceived attempt to use Nepali territory for deadly ISI-funded Muslim schemes against India. Pakistan, a nuclear power, and an ally of both China and the United States, would obviously be concerned were its nationals visiting Nepal not provided with basic courtesy and security.
The Nepali intelligentsia is concerned with a thorny question: if Nepal's precious time and scarce resources have to be utilized merely to address concerns of others, when will Nepal get a chance to look after its own safety, security and welfare?
History suggests that New Delhi often disregards what it preaches to others. For example, it sends armed security units inside Nepal to pick up suspected persons before their cases are tried in Nepal's courts. One striking example of this surfaced in February, when Nepali police officials handed over an absconding doctor who was allegedly running a major kidney transplant racket. Amit Kumar would have been transferred to India after the completion of extradition procedures, but New Delhi used diplomatic channels to take the suspect out of Nepal.
Former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala ordered Nepal police to hand over the suspect to Indian authorities without any legal basis. Koirala's friendly gesture was later reciprocated by New Delhi during April elections when India's national security advisor, M K Narayanan, used a television channel to extend India's support to Koirala and his party. That such support did not help him get re-elected prime minister is another story.
"We never put all our eggs in any [one] basket," Narayanan said in a September interview published in The Week magazine. While this statement was made in the context of Pakistan, it sends a pithy message to all in the region.
While Narayanan was spared from the humiliation of home minister Shivaraj Patil, who was forced to resign in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, security experts do not doubt the failure of India's intelligence apparatus. Conversations that this writer had with incumbent and former security officials in Nepal suggest that New Delhi is currently attempting to cover up its failure.
To accuse Pakistan without any empirical, credible evidence is clearly an attempt to divert the attention of the Indian public. Pakistan is fighting terrorists along its border with Afghanistan and is unsuccessfully engaged with terrorism within its own territory. Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari has offered a joint investigation on the Mumbai incident and has pledged to take action if non-state players in his country are found to have been involved in the attacks.
As officials in India continue to play the blame game, independent Indian experts and analysts do not approve of methods which might prove expedient in the short term.
"Experts on the issue of terrorism say that blaming Pakistan will be a convenient option," wrote John Cherian of Frontline magazine on December 19. Such a policy is bound to raise tensions and derail the peace process being pursued through what has been billed as bilateral dialogue. Brahma Chellaney, often perceived as a hawkish strategist, also thinks it prudent to employ options of diplomatic, economic and political orientation. "Between the two extremes - inaction and military action - lie a hundred different options," Chellaney wrote in The Hindu, on December 20.
A democratic country's actions naturally must be sane, humane and transparent to the highest extent possible. It was probably lack of transparency which led Indian minister, Abdul Rahman Antulay, to raise doubts about the the killing of a security official who was heading an anti-terrorism squad. "Anyone going to the roots of terror has always been a target," the Indian media quoted the minister as saying. Antulay's party was embarrassed at his suspicion of foul play and the opposition criticized the Muslim minister for saying something which could help Pakistan.
Nepali people are reminded of the hijacking of an Indian aircraft exactly nine years ago on December 24, 1999. The New Delhi-bound flight from Kathmandu was hijacked minutes after take off and was relinquished in Kandahar, Afghanistan, a week later. New Delhi was prompt to punish Kathmandu: suspending Indian Airline services for several months for its lax security. When flights were resumed, Nepal was forced to accept Indian security personnel frisking passengers at Kathmandu airport.
India even labelled a Nepali passenger as one of the hijackers. Later, when this could not be proved, India did not offer any apology for the mistake. Madan Lal Khurana, a minister in the government of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, said publicly in April 2006 that some of the "inside information" he possessed about the 1999 hijacking was "sensational". He promised to reveal details of the behind-the-scenes activity at an appropriate time.
Nepal's strategic location makes its stability vital in regard to containing possible attacks on neighboring nations. As such, many Nepali analysts feel that alleged foreign meddling in the country's domestic politics should come to an end.
This is something even Indian politicians admit from time to time.
"Keeping in view past experiences with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, it is better that we keep away from the internal affairs of that country," Indian parliamentarian S Sudhakar Reddy told the press after returning from an official visit to Nepal in June 2006.
Nepal Caught in Vortex of Regional Rivalry
By Nishi Thapa
The terror attack on Mumbai on November 26 quickly developed into renewed rivalry between India and Pakistan, and small Nepal has been dragged into the controversy. The latest dispute, focusing on the lone survivor among the 10 terrorists, is a case in point.
Nepal's Foreign Ministry issued a statement on December 19 stating that the man, Ajmal Kasab, was "neither arrested in Nepal nor was he handed over to any other country". This reaction came in the context of a Pakistani media report which earlier claimed that Kasab was arrested by Nepali police in 2005, and was quietly handed over to Indian authorities.
According to a claim made by a Pakistani lawyer, C M Faruque, Kasab was kept by Indian security, together with other Pakistani detainees.
"The people arrested in Nepal had gone there on legal visas for business, but Indian agencies are in the habit of capturing Pakistanis from Nepal and afterwards implicating them in Mumbai-like incidents to malign Pakistan," the lawyer was quoted as saying. Indian officials described these allegations as sheer propaganda. But this report was picked up by some Indian media outlets, including The Asian Age newspaper.
While this Nepali official's stand has helped Indian authorities maintain their original contention that the terrorists came from Pakistan to Mumbai via a sea route, there have been several occasions in the past when New Delhi has alleged that Nepal has become a den of terrorists sponsored by Pakistan's intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
There have also been cases in which New Delhi has complained that Nepali authorities did not take action against Pakistani visitors who were allegedly involved in the circulation of fake Indian currency. Pakistan's contention has been that it is prepared to cooperate when Nepali authorities can produce concrete proof of the involvement of Pakistani nationals in unlawful activities.
If a distant neighbor like Pakistan finds it useful to keep its intelligence agency "active" in Nepal, it can be assumed that India's external intelligence service, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), is "very active". China's intelligence agency is also likely to be involved.
The presence of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also cannot be ruled out. The British are also quite adept in handling their discreet spy network in a beneficial manner.
Who could be better placed to perceive such movements than Maoist leader Prachanda, who as prime minister heads Nepal's interim coalition. Prachanda revealed to journalists last week that what outwardly looked like a quarrel among political parties was in fact a confrontation between external forces.
What he did not concede is that the primary reason for enhanced external interest in Nepal is the rise of the Maoist brand of communism in the Himalayan country.
India's first official reaction on the Mumbai carnage came from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who blamed "outsiders" for their role in the tragic event in which nearly 200 people were killed. He then went on to warn "neighbors" of consequences if they continued to allow terrorists to use their territory. While Manmohan did not leave any doubt that Pakistan was the first target, his statement expressed New Delhi's suspicion that smaller countries around India also had to share the blame.
In an article appearing in the December 19 edition of Indian magazine Frontline, a writer said blaming Pakistan was a "convenient option" for India. If this comment is taken at face value, one can conclude that blaming smaller neighbors like Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka is even more convenient. This has been the case from time to time.
New Delhi's insistence that Kathmandu should enter a new extradition treaty with India is being seen in this context. One of the provisions of the proposed treaty requires the Nepali authorities to hand over to India suspects who could be citizens of other countries living or working in Nepal.
Kathmandu has not agreed to this pact so far in view of the concerns from Pakistan and China, among others. The existing extradition treaty, signed in 1953, is seen as anachronistic by New Delhi. Surprisingly, Indians do not take an interest in abrogating the more controversial friendship treaty signed in 1950. Almost all of Nepal's political parties have publicly described this pact as "unequal".
Nepal remains in an unenviable situation whereby it must assure its immediate neighbors that it won't allow its soil to be used by the foes of friendly neighbors. Beijing's concerns are directed to Tibetan exiles - including those sneaking in from their bases in India. India's worries revolve around Nepal's possible bid to use the "China card" as well as Pakistan's perceived attempt to use Nepali territory for deadly ISI-funded Muslim schemes against India. Pakistan, a nuclear power, and an ally of both China and the United States, would obviously be concerned were its nationals visiting Nepal not provided with basic courtesy and security.
The Nepali intelligentsia is concerned with a thorny question: if Nepal's precious time and scarce resources have to be utilized merely to address concerns of others, when will Nepal get a chance to look after its own safety, security and welfare?
History suggests that New Delhi often disregards what it preaches to others. For example, it sends armed security units inside Nepal to pick up suspected persons before their cases are tried in Nepal's courts. One striking example of this surfaced in February, when Nepali police officials handed over an absconding doctor who was allegedly running a major kidney transplant racket. Amit Kumar would have been transferred to India after the completion of extradition procedures, but New Delhi used diplomatic channels to take the suspect out of Nepal.
Former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala ordered Nepal police to hand over the suspect to Indian authorities without any legal basis. Koirala's friendly gesture was later reciprocated by New Delhi during April elections when India's national security advisor, M K Narayanan, used a television channel to extend India's support to Koirala and his party. That such support did not help him get re-elected prime minister is another story.
"We never put all our eggs in any [one] basket," Narayanan said in a September interview published in The Week magazine. While this statement was made in the context of Pakistan, it sends a pithy message to all in the region.
While Narayanan was spared from the humiliation of home minister Shivaraj Patil, who was forced to resign in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, security experts do not doubt the failure of India's intelligence apparatus. Conversations that this writer had with incumbent and former security officials in Nepal suggest that New Delhi is currently attempting to cover up its failure.
To accuse Pakistan without any empirical, credible evidence is clearly an attempt to divert the attention of the Indian public. Pakistan is fighting terrorists along its border with Afghanistan and is unsuccessfully engaged with terrorism within its own territory. Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari has offered a joint investigation on the Mumbai incident and has pledged to take action if non-state players in his country are found to have been involved in the attacks.
As officials in India continue to play the blame game, independent Indian experts and analysts do not approve of methods which might prove expedient in the short term.
"Experts on the issue of terrorism say that blaming Pakistan will be a convenient option," wrote John Cherian of Frontline magazine on December 19. Such a policy is bound to raise tensions and derail the peace process being pursued through what has been billed as bilateral dialogue. Brahma Chellaney, often perceived as a hawkish strategist, also thinks it prudent to employ options of diplomatic, economic and political orientation. "Between the two extremes - inaction and military action - lie a hundred different options," Chellaney wrote in The Hindu, on December 20.
A democratic country's actions naturally must be sane, humane and transparent to the highest extent possible. It was probably lack of transparency which led Indian minister, Abdul Rahman Antulay, to raise doubts about the the killing of a security official who was heading an anti-terrorism squad. "Anyone going to the roots of terror has always been a target," the Indian media quoted the minister as saying. Antulay's party was embarrassed at his suspicion of foul play and the opposition criticized the Muslim minister for saying something which could help Pakistan.
Nepali people are reminded of the hijacking of an Indian aircraft exactly nine years ago on December 24, 1999. The New Delhi-bound flight from Kathmandu was hijacked minutes after take off and was relinquished in Kandahar, Afghanistan, a week later. New Delhi was prompt to punish Kathmandu: suspending Indian Airline services for several months for its lax security. When flights were resumed, Nepal was forced to accept Indian security personnel frisking passengers at Kathmandu airport.
India even labelled a Nepali passenger as one of the hijackers. Later, when this could not be proved, India did not offer any apology for the mistake. Madan Lal Khurana, a minister in the government of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, said publicly in April 2006 that some of the "inside information" he possessed about the 1999 hijacking was "sensational". He promised to reveal details of the behind-the-scenes activity at an appropriate time.
Nepal's strategic location makes its stability vital in regard to containing possible attacks on neighboring nations. As such, many Nepali analysts feel that alleged foreign meddling in the country's domestic politics should come to an end.
This is something even Indian politicians admit from time to time.
"Keeping in view past experiences with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, it is better that we keep away from the internal affairs of that country," Indian parliamentarian S Sudhakar Reddy told the press after returning from an official visit to Nepal in June 2006.
The terror attack on Mumbai on November 26 quickly developed into renewed rivalry between India and Pakistan, and small Nepal has been dragged into the controversy. The latest dispute, focusing on the lone survivor among the 10 terrorists, is a case in point.
Nepal's Foreign Ministry issued a statement on December 19 stating that the man, Ajmal Kasab, was "neither arrested in Nepal nor was he handed over to any other country". This reaction came in the context of a Pakistani media report which earlier claimed that Kasab was arrested by Nepali police in 2005, and was quietly handed over to Indian authorities.
According to a claim made by a Pakistani lawyer, C M Faruque, Kasab was kept by Indian security, together with other Pakistani detainees.
"The people arrested in Nepal had gone there on legal visas for business, but Indian agencies are in the habit of capturing Pakistanis from Nepal and afterwards implicating them in Mumbai-like incidents to malign Pakistan," the lawyer was quoted as saying. Indian officials described these allegations as sheer propaganda. But this report was picked up by some Indian media outlets, including The Asian Age newspaper.
While this Nepali official's stand has helped Indian authorities maintain their original contention that the terrorists came from Pakistan to Mumbai via a sea route, there have been several occasions in the past when New Delhi has alleged that Nepal has become a den of terrorists sponsored by Pakistan's intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
There have also been cases in which New Delhi has complained that Nepali authorities did not take action against Pakistani visitors who were allegedly involved in the circulation of fake Indian currency. Pakistan's contention has been that it is prepared to cooperate when Nepali authorities can produce concrete proof of the involvement of Pakistani nationals in unlawful activities.
If a distant neighbor like Pakistan finds it useful to keep its intelligence agency "active" in Nepal, it can be assumed that India's external intelligence service, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), is "very active". China's intelligence agency is also likely to be involved.
The presence of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also cannot be ruled out. The British are also quite adept in handling their discreet spy network in a beneficial manner.
Who could be better placed to perceive such movements than Maoist leader Prachanda, who as prime minister heads Nepal's interim coalition. Prachanda revealed to journalists last week that what outwardly looked like a quarrel among political parties was in fact a confrontation between external forces.
What he did not concede is that the primary reason for enhanced external interest in Nepal is the rise of the Maoist brand of communism in the Himalayan country.
India's first official reaction on the Mumbai carnage came from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who blamed "outsiders" for their role in the tragic event in which nearly 200 people were killed. He then went on to warn "neighbors" of consequences if they continued to allow terrorists to use their territory. While Manmohan did not leave any doubt that Pakistan was the first target, his statement expressed New Delhi's suspicion that smaller countries around India also had to share the blame.
In an article appearing in the December 19 edition of Indian magazine Frontline, a writer said blaming Pakistan was a "convenient option" for India. If this comment is taken at face value, one can conclude that blaming smaller neighbors like Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka is even more convenient. This has been the case from time to time.
New Delhi's insistence that Kathmandu should enter a new extradition treaty with India is being seen in this context. One of the provisions of the proposed treaty requires the Nepali authorities to hand over to India suspects who could be citizens of other countries living or working in Nepal.
Kathmandu has not agreed to this pact so far in view of the concerns from Pakistan and China, among others. The existing extradition treaty, signed in 1953, is seen as anachronistic by New Delhi. Surprisingly, Indians do not take an interest in abrogating the more controversial friendship treaty signed in 1950. Almost all of Nepal's political parties have publicly described this pact as "unequal".
Nepal remains in an unenviable situation whereby it must assure its immediate neighbors that it won't allow its soil to be used by the foes of friendly neighbors. Beijing's concerns are directed to Tibetan exiles - including those sneaking in from their bases in India. India's worries revolve around Nepal's possible bid to use the "China card" as well as Pakistan's perceived attempt to use Nepali territory for deadly ISI-funded Muslim schemes against India. Pakistan, a nuclear power, and an ally of both China and the United States, would obviously be concerned were its nationals visiting Nepal not provided with basic courtesy and security.
The Nepali intelligentsia is concerned with a thorny question: if Nepal's precious time and scarce resources have to be utilized merely to address concerns of others, when will Nepal get a chance to look after its own safety, security and welfare?
History suggests that New Delhi often disregards what it preaches to others. For example, it sends armed security units inside Nepal to pick up suspected persons before their cases are tried in Nepal's courts. One striking example of this surfaced in February, when Nepali police officials handed over an absconding doctor who was allegedly running a major kidney transplant racket. Amit Kumar would have been transferred to India after the completion of extradition procedures, but New Delhi used diplomatic channels to take the suspect out of Nepal.
Former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala ordered Nepal police to hand over the suspect to Indian authorities without any legal basis. Koirala's friendly gesture was later reciprocated by New Delhi during April elections when India's national security advisor, M K Narayanan, used a television channel to extend India's support to Koirala and his party. That such support did not help him get re-elected prime minister is another story.
"We never put all our eggs in any [one] basket," Narayanan said in a September interview published in The Week magazine. While this statement was made in the context of Pakistan, it sends a pithy message to all in the region.
While Narayanan was spared from the humiliation of home minister Shivaraj Patil, who was forced to resign in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, security experts do not doubt the failure of India's intelligence apparatus. Conversations that this writer had with incumbent and former security officials in Nepal suggest that New Delhi is currently attempting to cover up its failure.
To accuse Pakistan without any empirical, credible evidence is clearly an attempt to divert the attention of the Indian public. Pakistan is fighting terrorists along its border with Afghanistan and is unsuccessfully engaged with terrorism within its own territory. Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari has offered a joint investigation on the Mumbai incident and has pledged to take action if non-state players in his country are found to have been involved in the attacks.
As officials in India continue to play the blame game, independent Indian experts and analysts do not approve of methods which might prove expedient in the short term.
"Experts on the issue of terrorism say that blaming Pakistan will be a convenient option," wrote John Cherian of Frontline magazine on December 19. Such a policy is bound to raise tensions and derail the peace process being pursued through what has been billed as bilateral dialogue. Brahma Chellaney, often perceived as a hawkish strategist, also thinks it prudent to employ options of diplomatic, economic and political orientation. "Between the two extremes - inaction and military action - lie a hundred different options," Chellaney wrote in The Hindu, on December 20.
A democratic country's actions naturally must be sane, humane and transparent to the highest extent possible. It was probably lack of transparency which led Indian minister, Abdul Rahman Antulay, to raise doubts about the the killing of a security official who was heading an anti-terrorism squad. "Anyone going to the roots of terror has always been a target," the Indian media quoted the minister as saying. Antulay's party was embarrassed at his suspicion of foul play and the opposition criticized the Muslim minister for saying something which could help Pakistan.
Nepali people are reminded of the hijacking of an Indian aircraft exactly nine years ago on December 24, 1999. The New Delhi-bound flight from Kathmandu was hijacked minutes after take off and was relinquished in Kandahar, Afghanistan, a week later. New Delhi was prompt to punish Kathmandu: suspending Indian Airline services for several months for its lax security. When flights were resumed, Nepal was forced to accept Indian security personnel frisking passengers at Kathmandu airport.
India even labelled a Nepali passenger as one of the hijackers. Later, when this could not be proved, India did not offer any apology for the mistake. Madan Lal Khurana, a minister in the government of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, said publicly in April 2006 that some of the "inside information" he possessed about the 1999 hijacking was "sensational". He promised to reveal details of the behind-the-scenes activity at an appropriate time.
Nepal's strategic location makes its stability vital in regard to containing possible attacks on neighboring nations. As such, many Nepali analysts feel that alleged foreign meddling in the country's domestic politics should come to an end.
This is something even Indian politicians admit from time to time.
"Keeping in view past experiences with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, it is better that we keep away from the internal affairs of that country," Indian parliamentarian S Sudhakar Reddy told the press after returning from an official visit to Nepal in June 2006.
Why Pakistan's Military is Gun Shy?
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
The attack on Mumbai on November 26 by Pakistan-linked militants opens a similar opportunity for India to what happened to Washington after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The US was able to further its regional designs with global support and was able to coerce Islamabad into cracking down on its own strategic partner, the Taliban in Afghanistan.
New Delhi also now has the international community on its side, but Pakistan is in a very different position from where it was seven years ago, and the new political and military leaders are not in a position to take similar steps to those of their predecessors.
In a new round of international pressure following the Mumbai attack, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, arrived in Pakistan this week to meet with senior Pakistani officials. The chief of Interpol was also scheduled to visit Islamabad on Tuesday to discuss the mechanism for the arrest and interrogation of wanted people such as Zakiur Rahman, the chief of the Lashka-e-Toiba (LET), which was connected to the militants who attacked Mumbai; Maulana Masood Azhar of the outlawed Jaish-e-Mohammed and former Mumbai underworld kingpin Dawood Ibrahim.
India is reported to have mobilized forces near the Rajasthan-Sindh Pakistani border areas and Pakistani intelligence sources have talked of possible surgical strikes on militant bases in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and in Lahore, at the central offices of the Jamaatut Dawa, which this month was declared by the United Nations Security Council a front for the LET, which is banned as a terror group. The Pakistan Air Force has been placed on red alert.
Earlier, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, both in public statements and private meetings, urged Pakistan to understand the gravity of the current situation and to take immediate steps to stop terrorists from using its soil for attacking others. The US warned Pakistan that in the absence of appropriate steps, it would be hard for the US to prevent Delhi from carrying out strikes inside Pakistan in retaliation for the Mumbai attack in which 10 militants held the city hostage for three days and killed 175 people, including top police officials.
In a speech at Washington's Council on Foreign Relations, Rice said what Pakistan had done so far to catch those responsible for the attacks in Mumbai was not enough. "You need to deal with the terrorism problem," she said when asked what her message was to Pakistan. "And it's not enough to say these are non-state actors. If they’re operating from Pakistani territory, then they have to be dealt with."
According to reports, Islamabad has assured Indian leaders and international leaders such as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown that it is ready to take all steps demanded by the world community to avoid a war.
All the same, actions speak louder than words and the prevailing opinion in Western capitals and in New Delhi is that Pakistan will not undertake any real crackdown on militants.
This view is reinforced by the contradictory statements of Pakistani officials. On December 7, Pakistani authorities issued a statement that Azhar, the founder of the Jaish-e-Mohammad, had been placed under house arrested at his Bahawalpur residence in Punjab. But on December 17, first the Pakistan envoy to New Delhi and then Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi stunned everybody by saying that Azhar was at large and not in Pakistan.
Azhar, a firebrand orator in favor of jihad although he has never been a combatant, was arrested in India in 1994 over his connections with the Kashmiri separatist group Harkatul Mujahideen. In December 1999, Azhar was freed along with separatist guerrillas Mushtaq Zargar and Omar Shiekh (the abductor of US reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi in 2002) by the Indian government in exchange for passengers on the hijacked Indian Airlines Flight 814 that was held hostage in Kandahar, Afghanistan, under Taliban control.
In 2000, Azhar, claimed by Pakistan to have never entered Pakistan, announced the formation of the Jaish-e-Mohammad, at a press briefing at the Karachi Press Club, along with the now slain Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai. Jaish was banned in 2002 under US pressure, but Azhar remained close to the Pakistani establishment, mainly because he refused to support al-Qaeda against the Pakistan military.
Following the Mumbai attack, Delhi has demanded that Azhar, along with others such as Dawood, be handed over. This was refused by Pakistan, which said Azhar was a Pakistani national and had never been tried by Indian authorities. Then came the surprise announcement that he was not even in Pakistan.
What complicates the situation is the lack of unity between the civilian government in Islamabad and the military. The government managed to get the international community to support it by having the Jamaatut Dawa declared a front for the LET to justify a crackdown on the organization against the will of the army. (See Pakistan's military takes a big hit Asia Times Online, December 13.)
But the military establishment, which has been humiliated over the past seven years, has good reasons not to back the government.
The problems started after September 11, when the US forced the then-military government of president General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban. Up to 2001, Afghanistan had virtually been a fifth Pakistani province for which Pakistan arranged day-to-day expenditures. Even the communications network was run by the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited.
By 2003, Pakistan had been forced to send the army into the restive tribal areas bordering Afghanistan to crack down on al-Qaeda and militants, in breach of its agreements with the tribes.
In 2004, Pakistan was forced to shut militant camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and to accept India's fencing of the Line of Control that separates the two Kashmirs. As a result, militant operations into India-administered Kashmir were badly interrupted.
When Pakistan changed its Afghan policy, Musharraf, who was also chief of army staff, informed all jihadi organizations that the policy was necessary to preserve Pakistan's interests in Kashmir. However, when the Kashmir policy changed and operations started in the tribal areas, the jihadi organizations reacted.
By 2005, all the big names in the LET had left the Kashmiri camps and taken up in the North and South Waziristan tribal areas. The same happened with Jaish and other organizations. The most respected name of the Kashmiri struggle, Maulana Ilyas Kashmiri, the commander of Harkatul Jihad al-Islami, also moved to Waziristan.
This was the beginning of serious problems for Pakistan and also resulted in a change in the dynamics of the Afghan war. Trained by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence's India cell, these disgruntled militants caused havoc in Afghanistan and played a significant role in bringing the latest guerrilla tactics to Afghanistan. They also introduced major changes in the fighting techniques of the tribal militants against the Pakistani forces.
By 2006, the Taliban had regrouped and launched the spring offensive that paved the way for significant advances over the next two years. At the same time, militants escalated their activities in Pakistan and forced Pakistan into virtual neutrality in the US-led "war on terror".
An unprecedented number of attacks were carried out on Pakistani security forces in 2007 and by February 2008 suicide attacks in Pakistan outnumbered those in Iraq. Militants carried out dozens of attacks on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) supply lines from Karachi, virtually bringing them to a halt. According to Strategic Forecasting, a Texas-based private intelligence entity: "Pakistan remains the single-most important logistics route for the Afghan campaign. This is not by accident. It is by far the quickest and most efficient overland route to the open ocean."
In this situation, the only peaceful place in Pakistan is Punjab, the largest province and the seat of government. But this peace can only be ensured through central Punjabi jihadi leaders like Hafiz Muhammad Saeed of the LET and southern Punjabi jihadi leader Azhar. Azhar has influence in the jihadi networks in Punjab and he convinced jihadis, after a wave of suicide attacks in Lahore, Rawalpindi and Islamabad, to go to Afghanistan and spare Punjab.
The highly demoralized Pakistan army has failed in the tribal areas and in the Swat Valley it has had to solicit peace accords. Opening up a new front in Punjab, which could spread to the port city of Karachi - the financial lifeline of the country - would be a disaster.
This explains the military's resistance to the government push to go full out against militancy, a move that would also compromise NATO's lifeline to Afghanistan.
The attack on Mumbai on November 26 by Pakistan-linked militants opens a similar opportunity for India to what happened to Washington after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The US was able to further its regional designs with global support and was able to coerce Islamabad into cracking down on its own strategic partner, the Taliban in Afghanistan.
New Delhi also now has the international community on its side, but Pakistan is in a very different position from where it was seven years ago, and the new political and military leaders are not in a position to take similar steps to those of their predecessors.
In a new round of international pressure following the Mumbai attack, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, arrived in Pakistan this week to meet with senior Pakistani officials. The chief of Interpol was also scheduled to visit Islamabad on Tuesday to discuss the mechanism for the arrest and interrogation of wanted people such as Zakiur Rahman, the chief of the Lashka-e-Toiba (LET), which was connected to the militants who attacked Mumbai; Maulana Masood Azhar of the outlawed Jaish-e-Mohammed and former Mumbai underworld kingpin Dawood Ibrahim.
India is reported to have mobilized forces near the Rajasthan-Sindh Pakistani border areas and Pakistani intelligence sources have talked of possible surgical strikes on militant bases in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and in Lahore, at the central offices of the Jamaatut Dawa, which this month was declared by the United Nations Security Council a front for the LET, which is banned as a terror group. The Pakistan Air Force has been placed on red alert.
Earlier, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, both in public statements and private meetings, urged Pakistan to understand the gravity of the current situation and to take immediate steps to stop terrorists from using its soil for attacking others. The US warned Pakistan that in the absence of appropriate steps, it would be hard for the US to prevent Delhi from carrying out strikes inside Pakistan in retaliation for the Mumbai attack in which 10 militants held the city hostage for three days and killed 175 people, including top police officials.
In a speech at Washington's Council on Foreign Relations, Rice said what Pakistan had done so far to catch those responsible for the attacks in Mumbai was not enough. "You need to deal with the terrorism problem," she said when asked what her message was to Pakistan. "And it's not enough to say these are non-state actors. If they’re operating from Pakistani territory, then they have to be dealt with."
According to reports, Islamabad has assured Indian leaders and international leaders such as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown that it is ready to take all steps demanded by the world community to avoid a war.
All the same, actions speak louder than words and the prevailing opinion in Western capitals and in New Delhi is that Pakistan will not undertake any real crackdown on militants.
This view is reinforced by the contradictory statements of Pakistani officials. On December 7, Pakistani authorities issued a statement that Azhar, the founder of the Jaish-e-Mohammad, had been placed under house arrested at his Bahawalpur residence in Punjab. But on December 17, first the Pakistan envoy to New Delhi and then Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi stunned everybody by saying that Azhar was at large and not in Pakistan.
Azhar, a firebrand orator in favor of jihad although he has never been a combatant, was arrested in India in 1994 over his connections with the Kashmiri separatist group Harkatul Mujahideen. In December 1999, Azhar was freed along with separatist guerrillas Mushtaq Zargar and Omar Shiekh (the abductor of US reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi in 2002) by the Indian government in exchange for passengers on the hijacked Indian Airlines Flight 814 that was held hostage in Kandahar, Afghanistan, under Taliban control.
In 2000, Azhar, claimed by Pakistan to have never entered Pakistan, announced the formation of the Jaish-e-Mohammad, at a press briefing at the Karachi Press Club, along with the now slain Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai. Jaish was banned in 2002 under US pressure, but Azhar remained close to the Pakistani establishment, mainly because he refused to support al-Qaeda against the Pakistan military.
Following the Mumbai attack, Delhi has demanded that Azhar, along with others such as Dawood, be handed over. This was refused by Pakistan, which said Azhar was a Pakistani national and had never been tried by Indian authorities. Then came the surprise announcement that he was not even in Pakistan.
What complicates the situation is the lack of unity between the civilian government in Islamabad and the military. The government managed to get the international community to support it by having the Jamaatut Dawa declared a front for the LET to justify a crackdown on the organization against the will of the army. (See Pakistan's military takes a big hit Asia Times Online, December 13.)
But the military establishment, which has been humiliated over the past seven years, has good reasons not to back the government.
The problems started after September 11, when the US forced the then-military government of president General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban. Up to 2001, Afghanistan had virtually been a fifth Pakistani province for which Pakistan arranged day-to-day expenditures. Even the communications network was run by the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited.
By 2003, Pakistan had been forced to send the army into the restive tribal areas bordering Afghanistan to crack down on al-Qaeda and militants, in breach of its agreements with the tribes.
In 2004, Pakistan was forced to shut militant camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and to accept India's fencing of the Line of Control that separates the two Kashmirs. As a result, militant operations into India-administered Kashmir were badly interrupted.
When Pakistan changed its Afghan policy, Musharraf, who was also chief of army staff, informed all jihadi organizations that the policy was necessary to preserve Pakistan's interests in Kashmir. However, when the Kashmir policy changed and operations started in the tribal areas, the jihadi organizations reacted.
By 2005, all the big names in the LET had left the Kashmiri camps and taken up in the North and South Waziristan tribal areas. The same happened with Jaish and other organizations. The most respected name of the Kashmiri struggle, Maulana Ilyas Kashmiri, the commander of Harkatul Jihad al-Islami, also moved to Waziristan.
This was the beginning of serious problems for Pakistan and also resulted in a change in the dynamics of the Afghan war. Trained by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence's India cell, these disgruntled militants caused havoc in Afghanistan and played a significant role in bringing the latest guerrilla tactics to Afghanistan. They also introduced major changes in the fighting techniques of the tribal militants against the Pakistani forces.
By 2006, the Taliban had regrouped and launched the spring offensive that paved the way for significant advances over the next two years. At the same time, militants escalated their activities in Pakistan and forced Pakistan into virtual neutrality in the US-led "war on terror".
An unprecedented number of attacks were carried out on Pakistani security forces in 2007 and by February 2008 suicide attacks in Pakistan outnumbered those in Iraq. Militants carried out dozens of attacks on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) supply lines from Karachi, virtually bringing them to a halt. According to Strategic Forecasting, a Texas-based private intelligence entity: "Pakistan remains the single-most important logistics route for the Afghan campaign. This is not by accident. It is by far the quickest and most efficient overland route to the open ocean."
In this situation, the only peaceful place in Pakistan is Punjab, the largest province and the seat of government. But this peace can only be ensured through central Punjabi jihadi leaders like Hafiz Muhammad Saeed of the LET and southern Punjabi jihadi leader Azhar. Azhar has influence in the jihadi networks in Punjab and he convinced jihadis, after a wave of suicide attacks in Lahore, Rawalpindi and Islamabad, to go to Afghanistan and spare Punjab.
The highly demoralized Pakistan army has failed in the tribal areas and in the Swat Valley it has had to solicit peace accords. Opening up a new front in Punjab, which could spread to the port city of Karachi - the financial lifeline of the country - would be a disaster.
This explains the military's resistance to the government push to go full out against militancy, a move that would also compromise NATO's lifeline to Afghanistan.
Film Review: Ghajini
By M H Ahssan
Save the climax, the Hindi version follows the Tamil original. The remarkable difference is how the marketing genius of Aamir Khan has turned eight pack abs and buzzcut with scar into style statements.
On the face of it Ghajini is an oft-repeated tale of the hero seeking revenge on the killer of his lady love. What makes it different then? The plot contrivance of anterograde amnesia i.e. short term memory loss. Our hero Sanjay Singhania (Aamir Khan), after being violently hit on the head, can only recall incidents that have happened less than 15 minutes ago. This allows for some experimentation in story-telling, play with images and editing as the action moves back and forth in time. It also helps the director in developing new modes and strategies of bumping off the bad guy. So Sanjay uses various devices--Polaroid camera, tattoos on his body, elaborate maps and messages on the wall--to help him in remembering that he has a major goal to accomplish.
For much of this, filmmaker A.R. Murugadoss needs to sincerely thank Christopher Nolan’s Memento right down to the inscription on the hero’s chest "Find Him…Kill Him". Where Murugadoss strikes a different note is in the elaborately played out comedy of errors love story wherein you have a fledgling model with a heart of gold, Kalpana (Asin), claiming to be the girlfriend of Sanjay who, of course, doesn’t even know what she looks like.
The other obvious departure from Memento is the song-n-dance. My friends from the South swear by the original soundtrack by Harris Jeyraj but my ears haven’t quite tuned in on the Tamil original yet. What works for me are two songs specifically, Guzarish and Behka. The songs have been shot in what we Northerners identify as quintessential Tamil idiom—as stylised set-pieces in kitschy colours. Two of these have been directed music video style by hotshot ad filmmaker Ravi Udayawar (remember his Dooba Dooba?)
Save the climax, the Hindi version follows the Tamil original, shot for shot, cut for cut, character for character, actor for actor. The villain is the same, and so are the heroine and the Inspector investigating Sanjay. Even the name of the mobile company that the hero works for --Airvoice -- is not changed. The differences are minor. The hero is 1975 born in Hindi, 1976 in Tamil. He is Singhania in Hindi, Ramaswamy in Tamil. He keeps the Polaroid camera on the right side, not the left as in Tamil version. The nerves and brains opening credits are similar, so is the first killing with blood dripping from the tap (though in Hindi you hear the sound, and don’t see it graphically as you do in Tamil). Why, even some props stay—the fan cooling off Asin in the makeup room and isn’t she reading the same Mario Puzo in both the versions?
The remarkable difference is how the marketing genius of Aamir Khan has turned eight pack abs and buzzcut with scar into style statements. But beyond the gimmickry, this surely is Aamir’s most physical performance yet. His presence is like that of a tormented animal--full of grief and rage. However, it’s not Aamir beating the pulp out of the goons that works for me. He is still at his best when he uses his face and registers fleeting expressions thereon. The haunted and hunting look in his eyes stands out. My favourite is the scene in the bus when he looks lovingly at Asin and says those three words. It is never quite as romantic and heart-stopping a moment in the Tamil original. The other Aamir touch is using Sunil Grover who plays Ruk Ruk Khan in Kaun Banega Champu in one of the comic scenes. Now is that another jab at SRK? Go figure out for yourself.
Asin’s act does not change at all from the original, but her wardrobe does entirely.Her character Kalpana is the kind that reaches out to the crowds--nice, warm, effervescent and vulnerable, a woman after every man’s heart. Moreover she is pleasing to the eye and cries in a manner that the mascara in her eyes and makeup on the face does not get washed away. In one phrase, she is 'eminently suitable' to be the next heroine of consequence in Bollywood.
The weak links are the zero presence Jiah Khan as the medical student who helps Sanjay in his mission and Pradeep Rawat as the villain with a horrible wannabe Haryanvi accent. The second half becomes way too prolonged and the climax, which am told has been changed entirely (and which I could not see in the bad, scratched out DVD I had procured of the Tamil version), leaves one dissatisfied. The effort to tie up all the loose ends jars and the end is way too safe. An edgy, far more treacherous end would have been more in order.
Save the climax, the Hindi version follows the Tamil original. The remarkable difference is how the marketing genius of Aamir Khan has turned eight pack abs and buzzcut with scar into style statements.
On the face of it Ghajini is an oft-repeated tale of the hero seeking revenge on the killer of his lady love. What makes it different then? The plot contrivance of anterograde amnesia i.e. short term memory loss. Our hero Sanjay Singhania (Aamir Khan), after being violently hit on the head, can only recall incidents that have happened less than 15 minutes ago. This allows for some experimentation in story-telling, play with images and editing as the action moves back and forth in time. It also helps the director in developing new modes and strategies of bumping off the bad guy. So Sanjay uses various devices--Polaroid camera, tattoos on his body, elaborate maps and messages on the wall--to help him in remembering that he has a major goal to accomplish.
For much of this, filmmaker A.R. Murugadoss needs to sincerely thank Christopher Nolan’s Memento right down to the inscription on the hero’s chest "Find Him…Kill Him". Where Murugadoss strikes a different note is in the elaborately played out comedy of errors love story wherein you have a fledgling model with a heart of gold, Kalpana (Asin), claiming to be the girlfriend of Sanjay who, of course, doesn’t even know what she looks like.
The other obvious departure from Memento is the song-n-dance. My friends from the South swear by the original soundtrack by Harris Jeyraj but my ears haven’t quite tuned in on the Tamil original yet. What works for me are two songs specifically, Guzarish and Behka. The songs have been shot in what we Northerners identify as quintessential Tamil idiom—as stylised set-pieces in kitschy colours. Two of these have been directed music video style by hotshot ad filmmaker Ravi Udayawar (remember his Dooba Dooba?)
Save the climax, the Hindi version follows the Tamil original, shot for shot, cut for cut, character for character, actor for actor. The villain is the same, and so are the heroine and the Inspector investigating Sanjay. Even the name of the mobile company that the hero works for --Airvoice -- is not changed. The differences are minor. The hero is 1975 born in Hindi, 1976 in Tamil. He is Singhania in Hindi, Ramaswamy in Tamil. He keeps the Polaroid camera on the right side, not the left as in Tamil version. The nerves and brains opening credits are similar, so is the first killing with blood dripping from the tap (though in Hindi you hear the sound, and don’t see it graphically as you do in Tamil). Why, even some props stay—the fan cooling off Asin in the makeup room and isn’t she reading the same Mario Puzo in both the versions?
The remarkable difference is how the marketing genius of Aamir Khan has turned eight pack abs and buzzcut with scar into style statements. But beyond the gimmickry, this surely is Aamir’s most physical performance yet. His presence is like that of a tormented animal--full of grief and rage. However, it’s not Aamir beating the pulp out of the goons that works for me. He is still at his best when he uses his face and registers fleeting expressions thereon. The haunted and hunting look in his eyes stands out. My favourite is the scene in the bus when he looks lovingly at Asin and says those three words. It is never quite as romantic and heart-stopping a moment in the Tamil original. The other Aamir touch is using Sunil Grover who plays Ruk Ruk Khan in Kaun Banega Champu in one of the comic scenes. Now is that another jab at SRK? Go figure out for yourself.
Asin’s act does not change at all from the original, but her wardrobe does entirely.Her character Kalpana is the kind that reaches out to the crowds--nice, warm, effervescent and vulnerable, a woman after every man’s heart. Moreover she is pleasing to the eye and cries in a manner that the mascara in her eyes and makeup on the face does not get washed away. In one phrase, she is 'eminently suitable' to be the next heroine of consequence in Bollywood.
The weak links are the zero presence Jiah Khan as the medical student who helps Sanjay in his mission and Pradeep Rawat as the villain with a horrible wannabe Haryanvi accent. The second half becomes way too prolonged and the climax, which am told has been changed entirely (and which I could not see in the bad, scratched out DVD I had procured of the Tamil version), leaves one dissatisfied. The effort to tie up all the loose ends jars and the end is way too safe. An edgy, far more treacherous end would have been more in order.
Film Review: Ghajini
By M H Ahssan
Save the climax, the Hindi version follows the Tamil original. The remarkable difference is how the marketing genius of Aamir Khan has turned eight pack abs and buzzcut with scar into style statements.
On the face of it Ghajini is an oft-repeated tale of the hero seeking revenge on the killer of his lady love. What makes it different then? The plot contrivance of anterograde amnesia i.e. short term memory loss. Our hero Sanjay Singhania (Aamir Khan), after being violently hit on the head, can only recall incidents that have happened less than 15 minutes ago. This allows for some experimentation in story-telling, play with images and editing as the action moves back and forth in time. It also helps the director in developing new modes and strategies of bumping off the bad guy. So Sanjay uses various devices--Polaroid camera, tattoos on his body, elaborate maps and messages on the wall--to help him in remembering that he has a major goal to accomplish.
For much of this, filmmaker A.R. Murugadoss needs to sincerely thank Christopher Nolan’s Memento right down to the inscription on the hero’s chest "Find Him…Kill Him". Where Murugadoss strikes a different note is in the elaborately played out comedy of errors love story wherein you have a fledgling model with a heart of gold, Kalpana (Asin), claiming to be the girlfriend of Sanjay who, of course, doesn’t even know what she looks like.
The other obvious departure from Memento is the song-n-dance. My friends from the South swear by the original soundtrack by Harris Jeyraj but my ears haven’t quite tuned in on the Tamil original yet. What works for me are two songs specifically, Guzarish and Behka. The songs have been shot in what we Northerners identify as quintessential Tamil idiom—as stylised set-pieces in kitschy colours. Two of these have been directed music video style by hotshot ad filmmaker Ravi Udayawar (remember his Dooba Dooba?)
Save the climax, the Hindi version follows the Tamil original, shot for shot, cut for cut, character for character, actor for actor. The villain is the same, and so are the heroine and the Inspector investigating Sanjay. Even the name of the mobile company that the hero works for --Airvoice -- is not changed. The differences are minor. The hero is 1975 born in Hindi, 1976 in Tamil. He is Singhania in Hindi, Ramaswamy in Tamil. He keeps the Polaroid camera on the right side, not the left as in Tamil version. The nerves and brains opening credits are similar, so is the first killing with blood dripping from the tap (though in Hindi you hear the sound, and don’t see it graphically as you do in Tamil). Why, even some props stay—the fan cooling off Asin in the makeup room and isn’t she reading the same Mario Puzo in both the versions?
The remarkable difference is how the marketing genius of Aamir Khan has turned eight pack abs and buzzcut with scar into style statements. But beyond the gimmickry, this surely is Aamir’s most physical performance yet. His presence is like that of a tormented animal--full of grief and rage. However, it’s not Aamir beating the pulp out of the goons that works for me. He is still at his best when he uses his face and registers fleeting expressions thereon. The haunted and hunting look in his eyes stands out. My favourite is the scene in the bus when he looks lovingly at Asin and says those three words. It is never quite as romantic and heart-stopping a moment in the Tamil original. The other Aamir touch is using Sunil Grover who plays Ruk Ruk Khan in Kaun Banega Champu in one of the comic scenes. Now is that another jab at SRK? Go figure out for yourself.
Asin’s act does not change at all from the original, but her wardrobe does entirely.Her character Kalpana is the kind that reaches out to the crowds--nice, warm, effervescent and vulnerable, a woman after every man’s heart. Moreover she is pleasing to the eye and cries in a manner that the mascara in her eyes and makeup on the face does not get washed away. In one phrase, she is 'eminently suitable' to be the next heroine of consequence in Bollywood.
The weak links are the zero presence Jiah Khan as the medical student who helps Sanjay in his mission and Pradeep Rawat as the villain with a horrible wannabe Haryanvi accent. The second half becomes way too prolonged and the climax, which am told has been changed entirely (and which I could not see in the bad, scratched out DVD I had procured of the Tamil version), leaves one dissatisfied. The effort to tie up all the loose ends jars and the end is way too safe. An edgy, far more treacherous end would have been more in order.
Save the climax, the Hindi version follows the Tamil original. The remarkable difference is how the marketing genius of Aamir Khan has turned eight pack abs and buzzcut with scar into style statements.
On the face of it Ghajini is an oft-repeated tale of the hero seeking revenge on the killer of his lady love. What makes it different then? The plot contrivance of anterograde amnesia i.e. short term memory loss. Our hero Sanjay Singhania (Aamir Khan), after being violently hit on the head, can only recall incidents that have happened less than 15 minutes ago. This allows for some experimentation in story-telling, play with images and editing as the action moves back and forth in time. It also helps the director in developing new modes and strategies of bumping off the bad guy. So Sanjay uses various devices--Polaroid camera, tattoos on his body, elaborate maps and messages on the wall--to help him in remembering that he has a major goal to accomplish.
For much of this, filmmaker A.R. Murugadoss needs to sincerely thank Christopher Nolan’s Memento right down to the inscription on the hero’s chest "Find Him…Kill Him". Where Murugadoss strikes a different note is in the elaborately played out comedy of errors love story wherein you have a fledgling model with a heart of gold, Kalpana (Asin), claiming to be the girlfriend of Sanjay who, of course, doesn’t even know what she looks like.
The other obvious departure from Memento is the song-n-dance. My friends from the South swear by the original soundtrack by Harris Jeyraj but my ears haven’t quite tuned in on the Tamil original yet. What works for me are two songs specifically, Guzarish and Behka. The songs have been shot in what we Northerners identify as quintessential Tamil idiom—as stylised set-pieces in kitschy colours. Two of these have been directed music video style by hotshot ad filmmaker Ravi Udayawar (remember his Dooba Dooba?)
Save the climax, the Hindi version follows the Tamil original, shot for shot, cut for cut, character for character, actor for actor. The villain is the same, and so are the heroine and the Inspector investigating Sanjay. Even the name of the mobile company that the hero works for --Airvoice -- is not changed. The differences are minor. The hero is 1975 born in Hindi, 1976 in Tamil. He is Singhania in Hindi, Ramaswamy in Tamil. He keeps the Polaroid camera on the right side, not the left as in Tamil version. The nerves and brains opening credits are similar, so is the first killing with blood dripping from the tap (though in Hindi you hear the sound, and don’t see it graphically as you do in Tamil). Why, even some props stay—the fan cooling off Asin in the makeup room and isn’t she reading the same Mario Puzo in both the versions?
The remarkable difference is how the marketing genius of Aamir Khan has turned eight pack abs and buzzcut with scar into style statements. But beyond the gimmickry, this surely is Aamir’s most physical performance yet. His presence is like that of a tormented animal--full of grief and rage. However, it’s not Aamir beating the pulp out of the goons that works for me. He is still at his best when he uses his face and registers fleeting expressions thereon. The haunted and hunting look in his eyes stands out. My favourite is the scene in the bus when he looks lovingly at Asin and says those three words. It is never quite as romantic and heart-stopping a moment in the Tamil original. The other Aamir touch is using Sunil Grover who plays Ruk Ruk Khan in Kaun Banega Champu in one of the comic scenes. Now is that another jab at SRK? Go figure out for yourself.
Asin’s act does not change at all from the original, but her wardrobe does entirely.Her character Kalpana is the kind that reaches out to the crowds--nice, warm, effervescent and vulnerable, a woman after every man’s heart. Moreover she is pleasing to the eye and cries in a manner that the mascara in her eyes and makeup on the face does not get washed away. In one phrase, she is 'eminently suitable' to be the next heroine of consequence in Bollywood.
The weak links are the zero presence Jiah Khan as the medical student who helps Sanjay in his mission and Pradeep Rawat as the villain with a horrible wannabe Haryanvi accent. The second half becomes way too prolonged and the climax, which am told has been changed entirely (and which I could not see in the bad, scratched out DVD I had procured of the Tamil version), leaves one dissatisfied. The effort to tie up all the loose ends jars and the end is way too safe. An edgy, far more treacherous end would have been more in order.
Film Review: Ghajini
By M H Ahssan
Save the climax, the Hindi version follows the Tamil original. The remarkable difference is how the marketing genius of Aamir Khan has turned eight pack abs and buzzcut with scar into style statements.
On the face of it Ghajini is an oft-repeated tale of the hero seeking revenge on the killer of his lady love. What makes it different then? The plot contrivance of anterograde amnesia i.e. short term memory loss. Our hero Sanjay Singhania (Aamir Khan), after being violently hit on the head, can only recall incidents that have happened less than 15 minutes ago. This allows for some experimentation in story-telling, play with images and editing as the action moves back and forth in time. It also helps the director in developing new modes and strategies of bumping off the bad guy. So Sanjay uses various devices--Polaroid camera, tattoos on his body, elaborate maps and messages on the wall--to help him in remembering that he has a major goal to accomplish.
For much of this, filmmaker A.R. Murugadoss needs to sincerely thank Christopher Nolan’s Memento right down to the inscription on the hero’s chest "Find Him…Kill Him". Where Murugadoss strikes a different note is in the elaborately played out comedy of errors love story wherein you have a fledgling model with a heart of gold, Kalpana (Asin), claiming to be the girlfriend of Sanjay who, of course, doesn’t even know what she looks like.
The other obvious departure from Memento is the song-n-dance. My friends from the South swear by the original soundtrack by Harris Jeyraj but my ears haven’t quite tuned in on the Tamil original yet. What works for me are two songs specifically, Guzarish and Behka. The songs have been shot in what we Northerners identify as quintessential Tamil idiom—as stylised set-pieces in kitschy colours. Two of these have been directed music video style by hotshot ad filmmaker Ravi Udayawar (remember his Dooba Dooba?)
Save the climax, the Hindi version follows the Tamil original, shot for shot, cut for cut, character for character, actor for actor. The villain is the same, and so are the heroine and the Inspector investigating Sanjay. Even the name of the mobile company that the hero works for --Airvoice -- is not changed. The differences are minor. The hero is 1975 born in Hindi, 1976 in Tamil. He is Singhania in Hindi, Ramaswamy in Tamil. He keeps the Polaroid camera on the right side, not the left as in Tamil version. The nerves and brains opening credits are similar, so is the first killing with blood dripping from the tap (though in Hindi you hear the sound, and don’t see it graphically as you do in Tamil). Why, even some props stay—the fan cooling off Asin in the makeup room and isn’t she reading the same Mario Puzo in both the versions?
The remarkable difference is how the marketing genius of Aamir Khan has turned eight pack abs and buzzcut with scar into style statements. But beyond the gimmickry, this surely is Aamir’s most physical performance yet. His presence is like that of a tormented animal--full of grief and rage. However, it’s not Aamir beating the pulp out of the goons that works for me. He is still at his best when he uses his face and registers fleeting expressions thereon. The haunted and hunting look in his eyes stands out. My favourite is the scene in the bus when he looks lovingly at Asin and says those three words. It is never quite as romantic and heart-stopping a moment in the Tamil original. The other Aamir touch is using Sunil Grover who plays Ruk Ruk Khan in Kaun Banega Champu in one of the comic scenes. Now is that another jab at SRK? Go figure out for yourself.
Asin’s act does not change at all from the original, but her wardrobe does entirely.Her character Kalpana is the kind that reaches out to the crowds--nice, warm, effervescent and vulnerable, a woman after every man’s heart. Moreover she is pleasing to the eye and cries in a manner that the mascara in her eyes and makeup on the face does not get washed away. In one phrase, she is 'eminently suitable' to be the next heroine of consequence in Bollywood.
The weak links are the zero presence Jiah Khan as the medical student who helps Sanjay in his mission and Pradeep Rawat as the villain with a horrible wannabe Haryanvi accent. The second half becomes way too prolonged and the climax, which am told has been changed entirely (and which I could not see in the bad, scratched out DVD I had procured of the Tamil version), leaves one dissatisfied. The effort to tie up all the loose ends jars and the end is way too safe. An edgy, far more treacherous end would have been more in order.
Save the climax, the Hindi version follows the Tamil original. The remarkable difference is how the marketing genius of Aamir Khan has turned eight pack abs and buzzcut with scar into style statements.
On the face of it Ghajini is an oft-repeated tale of the hero seeking revenge on the killer of his lady love. What makes it different then? The plot contrivance of anterograde amnesia i.e. short term memory loss. Our hero Sanjay Singhania (Aamir Khan), after being violently hit on the head, can only recall incidents that have happened less than 15 minutes ago. This allows for some experimentation in story-telling, play with images and editing as the action moves back and forth in time. It also helps the director in developing new modes and strategies of bumping off the bad guy. So Sanjay uses various devices--Polaroid camera, tattoos on his body, elaborate maps and messages on the wall--to help him in remembering that he has a major goal to accomplish.
For much of this, filmmaker A.R. Murugadoss needs to sincerely thank Christopher Nolan’s Memento right down to the inscription on the hero’s chest "Find Him…Kill Him". Where Murugadoss strikes a different note is in the elaborately played out comedy of errors love story wherein you have a fledgling model with a heart of gold, Kalpana (Asin), claiming to be the girlfriend of Sanjay who, of course, doesn’t even know what she looks like.
The other obvious departure from Memento is the song-n-dance. My friends from the South swear by the original soundtrack by Harris Jeyraj but my ears haven’t quite tuned in on the Tamil original yet. What works for me are two songs specifically, Guzarish and Behka. The songs have been shot in what we Northerners identify as quintessential Tamil idiom—as stylised set-pieces in kitschy colours. Two of these have been directed music video style by hotshot ad filmmaker Ravi Udayawar (remember his Dooba Dooba?)
Save the climax, the Hindi version follows the Tamil original, shot for shot, cut for cut, character for character, actor for actor. The villain is the same, and so are the heroine and the Inspector investigating Sanjay. Even the name of the mobile company that the hero works for --Airvoice -- is not changed. The differences are minor. The hero is 1975 born in Hindi, 1976 in Tamil. He is Singhania in Hindi, Ramaswamy in Tamil. He keeps the Polaroid camera on the right side, not the left as in Tamil version. The nerves and brains opening credits are similar, so is the first killing with blood dripping from the tap (though in Hindi you hear the sound, and don’t see it graphically as you do in Tamil). Why, even some props stay—the fan cooling off Asin in the makeup room and isn’t she reading the same Mario Puzo in both the versions?
The remarkable difference is how the marketing genius of Aamir Khan has turned eight pack abs and buzzcut with scar into style statements. But beyond the gimmickry, this surely is Aamir’s most physical performance yet. His presence is like that of a tormented animal--full of grief and rage. However, it’s not Aamir beating the pulp out of the goons that works for me. He is still at his best when he uses his face and registers fleeting expressions thereon. The haunted and hunting look in his eyes stands out. My favourite is the scene in the bus when he looks lovingly at Asin and says those three words. It is never quite as romantic and heart-stopping a moment in the Tamil original. The other Aamir touch is using Sunil Grover who plays Ruk Ruk Khan in Kaun Banega Champu in one of the comic scenes. Now is that another jab at SRK? Go figure out for yourself.
Asin’s act does not change at all from the original, but her wardrobe does entirely.Her character Kalpana is the kind that reaches out to the crowds--nice, warm, effervescent and vulnerable, a woman after every man’s heart. Moreover she is pleasing to the eye and cries in a manner that the mascara in her eyes and makeup on the face does not get washed away. In one phrase, she is 'eminently suitable' to be the next heroine of consequence in Bollywood.
The weak links are the zero presence Jiah Khan as the medical student who helps Sanjay in his mission and Pradeep Rawat as the villain with a horrible wannabe Haryanvi accent. The second half becomes way too prolonged and the climax, which am told has been changed entirely (and which I could not see in the bad, scratched out DVD I had procured of the Tamil version), leaves one dissatisfied. The effort to tie up all the loose ends jars and the end is way too safe. An edgy, far more treacherous end would have been more in order.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Will Chiranjeevi do An Obama?
By Javid Hassan
A charismatic Tollywood star, winner of the Padma Bhushan award and holder of an honorary doctorate in philosophy, actor-turned politician Chiranjeevi had all the makings of a vote-swinger as he entered the political arena with the launch of Praja Rajyam Party (PRP) in August this year.
Yet, like the Congress-I, he is playing the “wait & watch” game, watching the political landscape of Telangana and waiting for the right moment to strike. In the meantime, he is mustering the support of the people across the socio-economic spectrum of the region by harping on the theme of social justice and underlining his commitment to “Santosha Andhra Pradesh” (“Happy Andhra Pradesh”).
These slogans raise question marks over the ultimate goal of the PRP. Is it for or against a separate Telangana? By refusing to commit himself one way or the other and, at the same time, aspiring for ‘ Santosha Andhra Pradesh,’
Chiranjeevi appears like a twinkling star making us wonder what you are.
He is, however, leaving nothing to chance as he straddles the political stage with all the panache of a seasoned leader. Thus, at one of the several padayatras that he undertook recently, the actor-turned politician kept newsmen guessing on his party’s stand on the Telangana issue.
At the road shows, too, Chirnajeevi did not chant Jai Telangana even when he was prompted to do so, while he called on his opponents to clarify their stand on the issue. This raises a question over PRP’s depth of commitment to the call for a separate Telangana. The Doubting Thomases also refer to the way he dodges questions on the issue.
The mega star believes that he has outsmarted his political opponents by announcing at his Jagitial road show that PRP would not pose any problem if the Centre granted statehood for Telangana. “In fact, the political parties have little role to play in this regard and it is for the Centre to announce the formation of separate Telangana,” he observed.
While remaining noncommittal on the Telangana issue, Chiranjeevi has sought to firm up his party’s base by speaking for “social justice” at public meetings.He said the need of the hour was “Telangana Samajika Nyayam”(Telangana with social justice) and not mere Telangana as a geo-political entity. Through such a rhetoric he is sending across a message to the vulnerable sections of society that the Telangana movement was being hijacked by some elements of the upper caste for their own vested interests.
In this context, a question is being asked: how seriously do the people of Telangana think that Chiranjeevi is wedded to their cause? The speculation is that things would sort out during the run-up to the elections due in April next year. The PRP leader would then be obliged to take a stand if he wants to gain political mileage out of the spade work that he has already done.
This includes the setting up of the Chiranjeevi Blood Bank in Jubilee Hills, which has raised his profile among the people. What boosted its popularity was that frequent donors had an opportunity to take a personal photograph with their hero. Critics point out that the blood bank has become more of a meeting point for PRP’s party workers and also for those who came from villages and towns with recommendations to get tickets for the forthcoming elections. As a result, the blood bank became overcrowded with fans and political supporters. This has created bad blood between the blood bank and the donors, causing the numbers to shrink.
Nevertheless, Chiru still remains hugely popular. As his party stalwart Naga Babu put it: “We will prove all other political pundits wrong by coming to power. PRP will win with complete majority in the next assembly elections.”
Chiranjeevi replaced NTR as the Telugu film industry’s reigning superstar, and changed it forever. Now that he has entered politics, he might become a political icon as well.
The Telugu Desam Party, which NTR founded in 1982 and with which he swept to power, has now announced support for the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh which is, by the standards of political discussion of this sensitive subject, quite unambiguous. The TDP is obviously worried about the possibility that Chiranjeevi will cut into its base in coastal Andhra, while the communists, traditional allies of the TDP before Naidu allied with the NDA, have forged closer ties with the TRS recently. No wonder, TDP has jumped on the Telangana bandwagon as part of its defensive tactic.
The TDP was founded as the party that reflects Telugu pride. Its policies were populist to the core, but, by and large, it appealed to the emotional instinct of the people. However, when Chandra Babu Naidu donned the mantle of TDP leadership from NTR, Naidu replaced the party’s emotional beat with a reformist agenda. This is where Chiranjeevi outsmarted TDP by loading emotional content into his message and pulling the rug from under TDP.
Thus Chiranjeevi has become a force to reckon with in the political equations of Telangana politics. But whether he will win the incoming election on the strength of his own agenda is the key question. During the last Assembly and parliamentary elections, for instance, TRS had contested on a single point agenda—bringing statehood to the region. Most other political party leaders of the region had rubbished the idea at the time (except the Congress) mostly due to pressure from the party hierarchy which was sceptical of the whole idea. Congress eventually tied up with TRS promising the people a new state of Telangana. The rest, as they say, is history.
Chiranjeevi has so far avoided these political somersaults by keeping them guessing on his next move. Maybe, he wants to shine in his own light as a superstar and also on the strength of his own achievements that won him the honorific title of Padma Bhushan, the second highest Presidential Award in 2006. This led to an unprecedented international walkathon event in his honour organised by Pravasa Vaaradhis and the screening of a short film "Chiranjeevi: For Change!," which included his first ever campaign song.
The movie, an indigenous NRI production, featured the "Chiru Song 2008" composed, written and sung by prominent NRI Music Director SaiBorg, the son of a well-known folk singer. Whether Chiranjeevi will do an Obama in Telangana remains to be seen.
A charismatic Tollywood star, winner of the Padma Bhushan award and holder of an honorary doctorate in philosophy, actor-turned politician Chiranjeevi had all the makings of a vote-swinger as he entered the political arena with the launch of Praja Rajyam Party (PRP) in August this year.
Yet, like the Congress-I, he is playing the “wait & watch” game, watching the political landscape of Telangana and waiting for the right moment to strike. In the meantime, he is mustering the support of the people across the socio-economic spectrum of the region by harping on the theme of social justice and underlining his commitment to “Santosha Andhra Pradesh” (“Happy Andhra Pradesh”).
These slogans raise question marks over the ultimate goal of the PRP. Is it for or against a separate Telangana? By refusing to commit himself one way or the other and, at the same time, aspiring for ‘ Santosha Andhra Pradesh,’
Chiranjeevi appears like a twinkling star making us wonder what you are.
He is, however, leaving nothing to chance as he straddles the political stage with all the panache of a seasoned leader. Thus, at one of the several padayatras that he undertook recently, the actor-turned politician kept newsmen guessing on his party’s stand on the Telangana issue.
At the road shows, too, Chirnajeevi did not chant Jai Telangana even when he was prompted to do so, while he called on his opponents to clarify their stand on the issue. This raises a question over PRP’s depth of commitment to the call for a separate Telangana. The Doubting Thomases also refer to the way he dodges questions on the issue.
The mega star believes that he has outsmarted his political opponents by announcing at his Jagitial road show that PRP would not pose any problem if the Centre granted statehood for Telangana. “In fact, the political parties have little role to play in this regard and it is for the Centre to announce the formation of separate Telangana,” he observed.
While remaining noncommittal on the Telangana issue, Chiranjeevi has sought to firm up his party’s base by speaking for “social justice” at public meetings.He said the need of the hour was “Telangana Samajika Nyayam”(Telangana with social justice) and not mere Telangana as a geo-political entity. Through such a rhetoric he is sending across a message to the vulnerable sections of society that the Telangana movement was being hijacked by some elements of the upper caste for their own vested interests.
In this context, a question is being asked: how seriously do the people of Telangana think that Chiranjeevi is wedded to their cause? The speculation is that things would sort out during the run-up to the elections due in April next year. The PRP leader would then be obliged to take a stand if he wants to gain political mileage out of the spade work that he has already done.
This includes the setting up of the Chiranjeevi Blood Bank in Jubilee Hills, which has raised his profile among the people. What boosted its popularity was that frequent donors had an opportunity to take a personal photograph with their hero. Critics point out that the blood bank has become more of a meeting point for PRP’s party workers and also for those who came from villages and towns with recommendations to get tickets for the forthcoming elections. As a result, the blood bank became overcrowded with fans and political supporters. This has created bad blood between the blood bank and the donors, causing the numbers to shrink.
Nevertheless, Chiru still remains hugely popular. As his party stalwart Naga Babu put it: “We will prove all other political pundits wrong by coming to power. PRP will win with complete majority in the next assembly elections.”
Chiranjeevi replaced NTR as the Telugu film industry’s reigning superstar, and changed it forever. Now that he has entered politics, he might become a political icon as well.
The Telugu Desam Party, which NTR founded in 1982 and with which he swept to power, has now announced support for the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh which is, by the standards of political discussion of this sensitive subject, quite unambiguous. The TDP is obviously worried about the possibility that Chiranjeevi will cut into its base in coastal Andhra, while the communists, traditional allies of the TDP before Naidu allied with the NDA, have forged closer ties with the TRS recently. No wonder, TDP has jumped on the Telangana bandwagon as part of its defensive tactic.
The TDP was founded as the party that reflects Telugu pride. Its policies were populist to the core, but, by and large, it appealed to the emotional instinct of the people. However, when Chandra Babu Naidu donned the mantle of TDP leadership from NTR, Naidu replaced the party’s emotional beat with a reformist agenda. This is where Chiranjeevi outsmarted TDP by loading emotional content into his message and pulling the rug from under TDP.
Thus Chiranjeevi has become a force to reckon with in the political equations of Telangana politics. But whether he will win the incoming election on the strength of his own agenda is the key question. During the last Assembly and parliamentary elections, for instance, TRS had contested on a single point agenda—bringing statehood to the region. Most other political party leaders of the region had rubbished the idea at the time (except the Congress) mostly due to pressure from the party hierarchy which was sceptical of the whole idea. Congress eventually tied up with TRS promising the people a new state of Telangana. The rest, as they say, is history.
Chiranjeevi has so far avoided these political somersaults by keeping them guessing on his next move. Maybe, he wants to shine in his own light as a superstar and also on the strength of his own achievements that won him the honorific title of Padma Bhushan, the second highest Presidential Award in 2006. This led to an unprecedented international walkathon event in his honour organised by Pravasa Vaaradhis and the screening of a short film "Chiranjeevi: For Change!," which included his first ever campaign song.
The movie, an indigenous NRI production, featured the "Chiru Song 2008" composed, written and sung by prominent NRI Music Director SaiBorg, the son of a well-known folk singer. Whether Chiranjeevi will do an Obama in Telangana remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)