What is so honourable in defending or dis-honourable in not defending
the 'Johnson line' in Aksai Chin? That is a question that needs to be
asked to the Indian shouting brigade. The Chinese also need to be
asked as to why they wish to implement the 'MacDonald McCartney' line
drawn by British Imperialists? asks Col (retd) Anil Athale.
The recent face of between India [ Images ] and China in the Aksai
Chin area makes one feel a strong sense of déjà vu! It is only last
year that the country observed the 50th anniversary of that
unfortunate conflict and much ink was spilled by the Indian media to
assert how '1962' will not be repeated!
Yet what is one to make out of a leading national English daily giving
screaming headline, 'Chinese pitch 5th Tent in disputed area!' The
jingoism, uninformed comments, criticism of government, cries of
'surrender to the Chinese'. If a Rip Van Vinkle would have woken up
after 50 years he would find it all very familiar.
Naville Maxwell's otherwise biased account (India's China War) has one
very pertinent observation, 'Indian government was goaded into
foolhardy action by an un-informed media and public opinion to embark
on a disastrous course of action'.
Let us at least after 50 years be rational and stop being emotional
where Aksai Chin is concerned. Aksai Chin was essentially a 'No Man's
Land' between Ladakh and Tibet [ Images ]. A god forsaken cold desert
where 'not a blade of grass grows' as famously remarked by Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru [ Images ]! Aksai Chin became part of British India
in a typical 'imperial' map making exercise that wanted a land wedge
between the eastward expanding Russia [ Images ] and Tibet.
The threat never materialised and Aksai Chin remained a line on map.
Neither we nor the Chinese showed any interest in this area till the
late 1950s when they constructed a road between the two restive
provinces of Xingang and Tibet. It was militarily important for them.
They did this unilaterally without even informing India. Instead of
acknowledging the Chinese interest and accepting that India had none
and the dubious nature of the status of Aksai Chin area, we went in
for a 'maximalist' solution, claimed whole of Aksai Chin as ours and
despite known military weakness embarked on a 'flag showing'
aggressive creation of small posts to bolster our claim -- as if this
was some legal domestic land dispute where possession is 9/10 of law!
Even 51 years after the dispute we seemed stuck in justifying our
claims based on legacy of British imperialism! If Aksai Chin had some
strategic importance for us then one would understand the use of
history in terms of real politick, but our response to the Chinese
provocation seems wholly emotional and out of proportion to the
Chinese actions.
Countries that wish to invade territory do not do so by pitching tents!
This does not mean that the Chinese actions are merely 'tactical' as
PM has said. The decision to establish tents and structures in
'disputed' areas must have been taken at higher level. If the post
established is threatening our access to the areas to the north, then
we must take appropriate action. But this is a plea to let the armed
forces and government do the needful and there is no need for the
'emotional' response.
We must, while safeguarding our interests of defence of Ladakh, also
acknowledge that Aksai Chin is indeed a disputed territory. Our claim
to this area and Chinese counter claim stands on an entirely different
footing than say Arunachal Pradesh. Chinese claim on whole of
Arunachal Pradesh is spurious and goes against their own 'principles'
where they have accepted the MacMohan line and watershed principle to
demarcate border with Myanmar.
If one could venture to suggest a solution to Aksai Chin dispute, the
Russia-China agreement on Amur-Usuri border offers a good model. But
both sides must look at the dispute through a prism of 'realism' and
discard the baggage of history.
But the current stand off, certainly initiated by the Chinese, is
curious in terms of timing. China is at this very moment engaged in a
far more serious face off with Japan [ Images ] over the
Diaoyu/Senkaku islands. The Chinese premier is scheduled to visit
India soon. There is scheduled Indo-US meet in May to discuss China
specifically.
Is this a 'signal' to India to stay away from the US-Japan axis? Or is
it a typical media manipulation by the west to thwart and Sino-Indian
rapprochement? It is difficult to comment with the fog of
disinformation so thick.
A word of caution to the main opposition party in India, it must not
play into the hands of media manipulators and make this a 'domestic'
political issue. All Indians must stand behind the government/armed
forces for whatever action they deem fit. It is time the main
opposition behaved in a mature manner and not like the leader of
opposition did during the 1999 Kargil [ Images ] conflict with
Pakistan.
There is a possibility that the Chinese have decided to activate the
Sino-Indian border in view of the developing situation in Afghanistan
post the US withdrawal in 2014. This may be one of the ways that China
wants to help its 'all weather' friend Pakistan.
Incidentally, the Chinese help to Pakistan in increasing its nuclear
arsenal is far greater provocation as far as India is concerned.
Compared to that, the Ladakh incident is a mere pin prick. One also
wonders if the Chinese have decided that strengthening its proxy
Pakistan is in its long term interest rather than any normalisation of
relations with India.
For all the talk of China taking a long-term view of relations, this
seems a particularly myopic course of action. A course of action that
India has studiously avoided vis a vis China and Taiwan.
While Chou En Lie in 1960s quite rightly pointed out that India and
China must move away from the disputes created by Western imperialism,
it seems that China is supporting the biggest imperialist creation --
Pakistan!
This author stands by a suggestion made at track II in 2006 that India
and China must tackle its border disputes sector by sector. For
instance, there is no dispute over the border alignment in Uttarakhand
[ Images ] (Garhwal Kumaon area) as well as border along Himachal
Pradesh [ Images ]. These could well be demarcated and demilitarised.
Aksai Chin area should be demarcated with realistic give and take and
China should withdraw its fraudulent claim on Arunachal Pradesh.
Will India and China have the sense to do this before the American
power 'pivots' to Asia? Future of peace in Asia may well depend on
these decisions.
rediff
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Too many Congress contenders for Karnataka CM's post
If the exit polls in Karnataka are to be believed, the Congress will
manage to scrape through and get a thin majority in the state
assembly, when the votes are finally counted on Wednesday.
But the party may have a tough time in selecting a chief minister as
senior leaders Dr G Parameshwar and Siddaramaiah are both eyeing the
coveted post.
Siddaramaiah, who is considered a mass leader, wields greater
influence among the people. But he is considered a relative newcomer
as he has joined the Congress only six years ago.
Parameshwar, as the president of the state unit of the party, can take
credit for the Congress's victory in the election. But his electoral
performance in his constituency Koratageri may be the final factor in
deciding his candidature for the top post.
If both Siddaramaiah and Parameshwar win by convincing margins, the
party will have a tough time in choosing the CM.
To avoid a rupture in the party ranks, the Congress high command may
urge both leaders to take turns to serve as the chief minister.
The Congress party may spring a surprise by electing a leader who has
not openly been in the running for the top post. Senior Karnataka
leaders like Oscar Fernandes, Veerappa Moily and Mallikarjuna Kharge
fit the bill.
While Kharge seems to be the most obvious 'compromise' candidate,
Moily or Fernandes may be chosen for their proximity to party
president Sonia Gandhi. But if either of these leaders is chosen as
the chief minister, the Karnataka unit of the party will face the
threat of a revolt by the followers of both Siddaramaiah and
Parameshwar.
According to sources in the party, both Moily and Fernandes have been
out of touch with state politics for a while.
Kharge is a senior leader who is known for his loyalty and lack of
political rivals. Over the years, he has patiently waited at the
sidelines while other Congress leaders -- namely S M Krishna [ Images
] and Dharam Singh -- beat him to the CM's post.
If the Congress fails to get a simple majority, it will have to team
up with either the Janada Dal-Secular or the Karnataka Janata Party,
both of which are likely to support Kharge's candidature.
rediff
manage to scrape through and get a thin majority in the state
assembly, when the votes are finally counted on Wednesday.
But the party may have a tough time in selecting a chief minister as
senior leaders Dr G Parameshwar and Siddaramaiah are both eyeing the
coveted post.
Siddaramaiah, who is considered a mass leader, wields greater
influence among the people. But he is considered a relative newcomer
as he has joined the Congress only six years ago.
Parameshwar, as the president of the state unit of the party, can take
credit for the Congress's victory in the election. But his electoral
performance in his constituency Koratageri may be the final factor in
deciding his candidature for the top post.
If both Siddaramaiah and Parameshwar win by convincing margins, the
party will have a tough time in choosing the CM.
To avoid a rupture in the party ranks, the Congress high command may
urge both leaders to take turns to serve as the chief minister.
The Congress party may spring a surprise by electing a leader who has
not openly been in the running for the top post. Senior Karnataka
leaders like Oscar Fernandes, Veerappa Moily and Mallikarjuna Kharge
fit the bill.
While Kharge seems to be the most obvious 'compromise' candidate,
Moily or Fernandes may be chosen for their proximity to party
president Sonia Gandhi. But if either of these leaders is chosen as
the chief minister, the Karnataka unit of the party will face the
threat of a revolt by the followers of both Siddaramaiah and
Parameshwar.
According to sources in the party, both Moily and Fernandes have been
out of touch with state politics for a while.
Kharge is a senior leader who is known for his loyalty and lack of
political rivals. Over the years, he has patiently waited at the
sidelines while other Congress leaders -- namely S M Krishna [ Images
] and Dharam Singh -- beat him to the CM's post.
If the Congress fails to get a simple majority, it will have to team
up with either the Janada Dal-Secular or the Karnataka Janata Party,
both of which are likely to support Kharge's candidature.
rediff
Why India deserves a better Food Security Bill
Any meaningful food security programme should aim at gradually
reducing the number of hungry dependent on government support,' says
Devinder Sharma. 'This is only possible if the government had looked
at the entire issue in a sincere manner.'
'I don't think at any stage the government was honest in its approach.
It had simply worked and reworked the Food Security Bill keeping the
2014 election in mind.'
There is so much of hype and expectation from the proposed National
Food Security bill that I have begun to fear for the hungry millions.
For a country which has the largest population of hungry and
malnourished in the world, I was expecting a sensible piece of
legislation, which looks beyond immediate political gains, to build up
a society that does not have to depend upon food doles so as to emerge
free from the clutches of hunger in the long run.
The proposed bill aims at providing highly subsidised grains to 67 per
cent of the population to begin with. In the years to come, I am sure
the coverage under the food security programme would be further
extended.
Even before the bills make a provision for supplying grains at Rs
3/2/1 for rice/wheat/millets to the eligible households, some states
have already moved in with universal distribution of rice at Rs 1/kg
as in Tamil Nadu, to an equally attractive roti-dal scheme in Punjab,
and more lately Tamil Nadu going a step ahead by offering
Idli/Sambhar/Curd rice at a phenomenally low price.
If it is a one-time entitlement, I can understand the political logic.
But don't we remember the age-old Chinese adage: If you want to feed a
man for a day, give him fish. But if you want to feed him for
lifetime, teach him how to catch fish.
For a country which ranks 66 among 105 countries in the latest Global
Hunger Index rankings, and which has a deplorable 47 per cent of the
children under 5 living in acute malnutrition, Sonia Gandhi's resolve
to have a legally-binding legislation on food security certainly
provided a historic opportunity.
But looking at what is available in the public domain, I must
acknowledge it is an opportunity lost.
First, the National Advisory Council repackaged the public
distribution system in a new format, and then the continuing wrangling
between the concerned ministries only showed how myopic our thinking
is.
Simply by putting the old wine in a new bottle and adding a couple of
legal provisions will not provide freedom from hunger.
Let us not forget, the Integrated Child Development Scheme as well as
MNREGA have legal provisions which have failed to deliver. Legal
entitlement alone cannot serve as a guarantee.
For a country as diverse as India, a one size fits all approach will
not work. It has to be a multi-pronged approach.
First and foremost, it has to be acknowledged that the artificially
stringent poverty Planning Commission comes up with is actually the
food insecure line. At Rs 28.65 per capita daily consumption in cities
and Rs 22.42 in rural areas it is not possible to buy two square meals
a day.
These are the people who need emergency food aid.
For the 77 per cent population that the Arjun Sengupta Committee had
categorised in the report of the National Commission for Enterprise in
the Unorganised Sector, a different approach to address food security
concerns need to be put in place.
In essence, what India needs is not one, but two lines that makes a
clear distinction between the acute hungry and the poor. The approach
to address hunger should be different for both the categories.
Over 550,000 villages of India's total 638,000 villages produce food
crops. Most of these villages have something to sell in the market.
How come a number of people go to bed hungry in the same village that
produces enough food?
Why can't a food security system be launched that takes care of the
hungry in the same villages (or a cluster of villages) that produce
surplus food?
Even in the heart of the hunger belt of Kalahandi in Odisha I have
seen villages which have not faced hunger for several decades now.
These are the villages which have small traditional foodgrain banks
and have operationalised a system of sharing and caring which has
worked successfully over time.
The Gola system in Bihar is another well-known example. I know scores
of such villages across the country where hunger is by and large
history.
It is not difficult to redesign a national programme that makes
India's villages self-reliant in food security. This will not only
reduce the dependence on public distribution system, but also restrict
the massive financial outgo year after year.
Instead of keeping almost a quarter of the population dependent upon
food doles every year, such a programme will prepare poor households
to take care of their own hunger.
At the same time, what is not being told is whether the proposed bill
will reduce the number of hungry in the years to come.
With 14.5 million farmers quitting agriculture between 2004-2005 and
2009-2010, and another 5 million jobs in manufacturing sector lost in
the same period, I fear the percentage of people depending on monthly
rations will grow with every passing year.
The proposed Food Security Bill has to be seen in the light of several
policy changes that are being simultaneously brought in.
To begin with, the government proposes to introduce cash-for-food
before the 2014 election. This little understood proposal is being
timed with a food ministry suggestion of capping food procurement.
In addition, the Food Corporation of India is being asked to abandon
its sovereign role and instead venture into commodity trading (See my
analysis: http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.in/2013/05/cash-for-food-will-strike-at-very.html).
What India needs is a hunger programme that ensures food security at
the household and village level.
Food security cannot be ensured without suitably modifying economic
policies in agriculture, rural development, science and technology and
international trade.
I find no such effort being made. In fact, these policies run counter
to the massive hunger programme being re-launched. Any meaningful food
security programme should aim at gradually reducing the number of
hungry dependent on government support. This is only possible if the
government had looked at the entire issue in a sincere and holistic
manner.
I don't think at any stage the government was honest in its approach.
It had simply worked and reworked the Food Security Bill keeping the
2014 election in mind.
rediff.com
reducing the number of hungry dependent on government support,' says
Devinder Sharma. 'This is only possible if the government had looked
at the entire issue in a sincere manner.'
'I don't think at any stage the government was honest in its approach.
It had simply worked and reworked the Food Security Bill keeping the
2014 election in mind.'
There is so much of hype and expectation from the proposed National
Food Security bill that I have begun to fear for the hungry millions.
For a country which has the largest population of hungry and
malnourished in the world, I was expecting a sensible piece of
legislation, which looks beyond immediate political gains, to build up
a society that does not have to depend upon food doles so as to emerge
free from the clutches of hunger in the long run.
The proposed bill aims at providing highly subsidised grains to 67 per
cent of the population to begin with. In the years to come, I am sure
the coverage under the food security programme would be further
extended.
Even before the bills make a provision for supplying grains at Rs
3/2/1 for rice/wheat/millets to the eligible households, some states
have already moved in with universal distribution of rice at Rs 1/kg
as in Tamil Nadu, to an equally attractive roti-dal scheme in Punjab,
and more lately Tamil Nadu going a step ahead by offering
Idli/Sambhar/Curd rice at a phenomenally low price.
If it is a one-time entitlement, I can understand the political logic.
But don't we remember the age-old Chinese adage: If you want to feed a
man for a day, give him fish. But if you want to feed him for
lifetime, teach him how to catch fish.
For a country which ranks 66 among 105 countries in the latest Global
Hunger Index rankings, and which has a deplorable 47 per cent of the
children under 5 living in acute malnutrition, Sonia Gandhi's resolve
to have a legally-binding legislation on food security certainly
provided a historic opportunity.
But looking at what is available in the public domain, I must
acknowledge it is an opportunity lost.
First, the National Advisory Council repackaged the public
distribution system in a new format, and then the continuing wrangling
between the concerned ministries only showed how myopic our thinking
is.
Simply by putting the old wine in a new bottle and adding a couple of
legal provisions will not provide freedom from hunger.
Let us not forget, the Integrated Child Development Scheme as well as
MNREGA have legal provisions which have failed to deliver. Legal
entitlement alone cannot serve as a guarantee.
For a country as diverse as India, a one size fits all approach will
not work. It has to be a multi-pronged approach.
First and foremost, it has to be acknowledged that the artificially
stringent poverty Planning Commission comes up with is actually the
food insecure line. At Rs 28.65 per capita daily consumption in cities
and Rs 22.42 in rural areas it is not possible to buy two square meals
a day.
These are the people who need emergency food aid.
For the 77 per cent population that the Arjun Sengupta Committee had
categorised in the report of the National Commission for Enterprise in
the Unorganised Sector, a different approach to address food security
concerns need to be put in place.
In essence, what India needs is not one, but two lines that makes a
clear distinction between the acute hungry and the poor. The approach
to address hunger should be different for both the categories.
Over 550,000 villages of India's total 638,000 villages produce food
crops. Most of these villages have something to sell in the market.
How come a number of people go to bed hungry in the same village that
produces enough food?
Why can't a food security system be launched that takes care of the
hungry in the same villages (or a cluster of villages) that produce
surplus food?
Even in the heart of the hunger belt of Kalahandi in Odisha I have
seen villages which have not faced hunger for several decades now.
These are the villages which have small traditional foodgrain banks
and have operationalised a system of sharing and caring which has
worked successfully over time.
The Gola system in Bihar is another well-known example. I know scores
of such villages across the country where hunger is by and large
history.
It is not difficult to redesign a national programme that makes
India's villages self-reliant in food security. This will not only
reduce the dependence on public distribution system, but also restrict
the massive financial outgo year after year.
Instead of keeping almost a quarter of the population dependent upon
food doles every year, such a programme will prepare poor households
to take care of their own hunger.
At the same time, what is not being told is whether the proposed bill
will reduce the number of hungry in the years to come.
With 14.5 million farmers quitting agriculture between 2004-2005 and
2009-2010, and another 5 million jobs in manufacturing sector lost in
the same period, I fear the percentage of people depending on monthly
rations will grow with every passing year.
The proposed Food Security Bill has to be seen in the light of several
policy changes that are being simultaneously brought in.
To begin with, the government proposes to introduce cash-for-food
before the 2014 election. This little understood proposal is being
timed with a food ministry suggestion of capping food procurement.
In addition, the Food Corporation of India is being asked to abandon
its sovereign role and instead venture into commodity trading (See my
analysis: http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.in/2013/05/cash-for-food-will-strike-at-very.html).
What India needs is a hunger programme that ensures food security at
the household and village level.
Food security cannot be ensured without suitably modifying economic
policies in agriculture, rural development, science and technology and
international trade.
I find no such effort being made. In fact, these policies run counter
to the massive hunger programme being re-launched. Any meaningful food
security programme should aim at gradually reducing the number of
hungry dependent on government support. This is only possible if the
government had looked at the entire issue in a sincere and holistic
manner.
I don't think at any stage the government was honest in its approach.
It had simply worked and reworked the Food Security Bill keeping the
2014 election in mind.
rediff.com
I’m an Indian politician… on TV
Are they parliamentarians, or do they just play ones on TV? After
pushing through proposals on foreign investment in the retail and the
aviation sector late last year, India's elected representatives
apparently have decided to get as little done as possible during the
current session.
On television, it's another matter. Newsroom studios appear to be the
preferred forum for debating problems and legislation that normally
would be the province of parliament. Those include recent demands by
the coalition government's prime opponent, the Bharatiya Janata Party,
for the resignations of the prime minister, law minister and the
railway minister over accusations that the government interfered with
an investigation of improper allocation of coal mine licenses and
certain other bribery allegations.
The Lok Sabha, or "people's house," has repeatedly adjourned in recent
days, likely making it one of the least productive in its history.
That's bad if you want to pass bills, but it does help clear
politicians' schedules for the nightly news discussion programs. And
that is not a bad thing, depending on whom you ask.
"The effort is to inform the public," said BJP spokeswoman Nirmala
Sitharaman. "We don't think even for a minute we'll accept this charge
that we are disrupting parliament … This government wants to have a
debating club run without any accountability".
Here's a sample of what substitutes exist for debate in the Lok Sabha
(May 6, prime time shows):
Times Now
Show Header - Food Bill vs Railgate, Populism vs Controversy? Speaker
of the House (i.e. the anchor) - Arnab Goswami; Participants –
Bhalchandra Mungekar, Congress MP; Piyush Goyal, BJP MP; Subramanian
Swamy, Janata Party Chief
Headlines Today
Show Header – Dr. Dolittle Should Go? Speaker of the House – Rahul
Kanwal; Participants – Meenakshi Lekhi, national spokeswoman, BJP;
Mani Shankar Iyer, Congress MP; Subramanian Swamy
CNN-IBN
Show Header - Ministers embarrass government; Speaker of the house –
Rajdeep Sardesai; Participants – Satyavrat Chaturvedi, Congress MP;
Nirmala Sitharaman, national spokeswoman, BJP
This kind of ersatz public debate taking place on the airwaves is not
funny, but "tragic," said political analyst Amulya Ganguli. "This is
part of the cynical attitude which marks Indian politicians of all
parties."
Rajdeep Sardesai, anchor and editor of CNN-IBN's prime-time show,
disagreed, as you might expect. "I think a prime time news show is
different from parliament … a prime time news show gives the MPs a
platform to represent their viewpoint in a manner that parliament
sadly no longer allows them."
There are various reasons that the BJP or other opposition parties
might have to disrupt parliament. Experts say that they lack the
numbers to defeat the Congress party-led ruling coalition by sheer
votes, leaving them to resort to technical tactics – or general chaos.
That in theory allows for back-room negotiations that could produce
more orderly votes that go in the direction that some parties want.
The current budget session of parliament ends on May 10.
The trouble? It endangers the passage of bills that are important for
the economy at a time when a high current account deficit, inflation
fears and a poor debt ratings outlook threaten the country. Various
bills such as the land acquisition bill, food security bill and the
ones which propose to increase foreign investment in pension and
insurance sectors are stuck in parliament.
In the end, TV debates amount to publicity stunts, said D H Pai
Panandiker, head of the RPG Foundation, a New Delhi-based think tank.
"Things are going to go on like this … I am not expecting much to come
out even of the monsoon session."
reuters
pushing through proposals on foreign investment in the retail and the
aviation sector late last year, India's elected representatives
apparently have decided to get as little done as possible during the
current session.
On television, it's another matter. Newsroom studios appear to be the
preferred forum for debating problems and legislation that normally
would be the province of parliament. Those include recent demands by
the coalition government's prime opponent, the Bharatiya Janata Party,
for the resignations of the prime minister, law minister and the
railway minister over accusations that the government interfered with
an investigation of improper allocation of coal mine licenses and
certain other bribery allegations.
The Lok Sabha, or "people's house," has repeatedly adjourned in recent
days, likely making it one of the least productive in its history.
That's bad if you want to pass bills, but it does help clear
politicians' schedules for the nightly news discussion programs. And
that is not a bad thing, depending on whom you ask.
"The effort is to inform the public," said BJP spokeswoman Nirmala
Sitharaman. "We don't think even for a minute we'll accept this charge
that we are disrupting parliament … This government wants to have a
debating club run without any accountability".
Here's a sample of what substitutes exist for debate in the Lok Sabha
(May 6, prime time shows):
Times Now
Show Header - Food Bill vs Railgate, Populism vs Controversy? Speaker
of the House (i.e. the anchor) - Arnab Goswami; Participants –
Bhalchandra Mungekar, Congress MP; Piyush Goyal, BJP MP; Subramanian
Swamy, Janata Party Chief
Headlines Today
Show Header – Dr. Dolittle Should Go? Speaker of the House – Rahul
Kanwal; Participants – Meenakshi Lekhi, national spokeswoman, BJP;
Mani Shankar Iyer, Congress MP; Subramanian Swamy
CNN-IBN
Show Header - Ministers embarrass government; Speaker of the house –
Rajdeep Sardesai; Participants – Satyavrat Chaturvedi, Congress MP;
Nirmala Sitharaman, national spokeswoman, BJP
This kind of ersatz public debate taking place on the airwaves is not
funny, but "tragic," said political analyst Amulya Ganguli. "This is
part of the cynical attitude which marks Indian politicians of all
parties."
Rajdeep Sardesai, anchor and editor of CNN-IBN's prime-time show,
disagreed, as you might expect. "I think a prime time news show is
different from parliament … a prime time news show gives the MPs a
platform to represent their viewpoint in a manner that parliament
sadly no longer allows them."
There are various reasons that the BJP or other opposition parties
might have to disrupt parliament. Experts say that they lack the
numbers to defeat the Congress party-led ruling coalition by sheer
votes, leaving them to resort to technical tactics – or general chaos.
That in theory allows for back-room negotiations that could produce
more orderly votes that go in the direction that some parties want.
The current budget session of parliament ends on May 10.
The trouble? It endangers the passage of bills that are important for
the economy at a time when a high current account deficit, inflation
fears and a poor debt ratings outlook threaten the country. Various
bills such as the land acquisition bill, food security bill and the
ones which propose to increase foreign investment in pension and
insurance sectors are stuck in parliament.
In the end, TV debates amount to publicity stunts, said D H Pai
Panandiker, head of the RPG Foundation, a New Delhi-based think tank.
"Things are going to go on like this … I am not expecting much to come
out even of the monsoon session."
reuters
Sunday, 5 May 2013
Coal-gate: Will CBI name Ashwani in Supreme Court?
The Central Bureau of Investigation is likely to convey to the Supreme Court on Monday that changes were proposed both by Law Minister Ashwani Kumar and Attorney General G M Vahanvati in its status report on investigations into the controversial allocation of coal blocks.
CBI's Director Ranjit Sinha discussed an affidavit in this connection to be filed by the agency on Monday with its lawyer U U lalit who has replaced Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval.
The ASG resigned after a controversy that put the government in a spot erupted over his allegation that Vahanvati tried to influence the probe.
The ASG resigned after a controversy that put the government in a spot erupted over his allegation that Vahanvati tried to influence the probe.
Sources said today the crucial CBI affidavit while confirming that changes were made in the draft status report is also likely to say that the Law Minister had proposed a "dilution" of language in the document before it was given to the apex court.
The affidavit is also likely to mention that the Law Minister disagreed with the line --"rules not being followed in coal allocation" -- in the status report, the sources said.
The affidavit is also likely to mention that the Law Minister disagreed with the line --"rules not being followed in coal allocation" -- in the status report, the sources said.
It will further state that the Law Minister had argued that CBI cannot reach this conclusion before the investigation is completed, the sources added.
The sources said that CBI is likely to confirm that the Attorney General saw more than one draft of the status report.
The sources said CBI will tell the apex court that the probe agency manual rules remained silent on the issue of access to the status report.
The sources said CBI will tell the apex court that the probe agency manual rules remained silent on the issue of access to the status report.
The sources said the affidavit is also likely to name the Joint Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office and a Joint Secretary in the Coal ministry in connection with the status report. The document is also likely to say there was a meeting with a PMO official and that changes were made.
The CBI Director had told the apex court in a two-page affidavit that the draft status report was shared with the Law Minister 'as desired by him' and also shown to a JS in the PMO and a JS in the coal ministry.
rediff
Saturday, 4 May 2013
A 19th century album of imperial calligraphy
Calligraphy by the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah II
Calligraphy by Prince Darabakht, heir to the throne
Calligraphy by Prince Muhammad Sultan Fath al-Mulk Shah
Calligraphy, dated 1268 (1851/52) by Sayyid Muhammad Amir
This is where MOVIES are made
A hundred years ago, Dadasaheb Phalke converted his home as the set of the very first Indian film, Raja Harishchandra.
As films grew in grandeur, their canvas grew too, leading the birth of iconic studios, where glittering stars and powerful filmmakers canned magic that would unspool on the silver screen.
We begin our celebration of the 100 years of Indian cinema by taking you on a tour of some of Mumbai's movie studios.
Hidden behind these gates are massive grounds, where iconic sets have been created, and destroyed.
Where blockbusters were filmed.
Where beautiful heroines fluttered their eyelashes and danced to unforgettable songs.
Where handsome heroes wooed shy damsels and beat up dastardly villains.
Where love stories blossomed, both on and off-screen.
Where people were drawn like moths to a flame, hoping for that once successful shot at Bollywood.
These are the studios of Mumbai, where a million dreams were woven. And a million dreams shattered.
Take a look.
Kamal Amrohi Studios
Also known as Kamalistan, this studio was built in 1958 by filmmaker Kamal Amrohi of Mahal and Pakeezah fame.
Some of the films shot here are Amar Akbar Anthony, Razia Sultan, Kaalia, Koyla and Khalnayak.
Recently, Salman Khan booked the entire studio for Dabangg 2, while John Abraham and Sanjay Dutt shot their films, I Me Aur Main and Policegiri respectively.
Recently, Salman Khan booked the entire studio for Dabangg 2, while John Abraham and Sanjay Dutt shot their films, I Me Aur Main and Policegiri respectively.
R K Studios
Last updated on: April 29, 2013 10:57 IST
R K Studios was founded by Raj Kapoor in 1948.
The first film shot at the studio was Aag in the same year, which did not do well.
Some of Raj Kapoor's best films were filmed here like Barsaat (1949), Awaara (1951), Boot Polish (1954), Shri 420 (1955), Jagte Raho(1956), Jis Desh Men Ganga Behti Hai (1960), Mera Naam Joker (1970), Bobby (1973), Satyam Shivam Sundaram (1978), Prem Rog (1982) and Ram Teri Ganga Maili(1985).
Some of Raj Kapoor's best films were filmed here like Barsaat (1949), Awaara (1951), Boot Polish (1954), Shri 420 (1955), Jagte Raho(1956), Jis Desh Men Ganga Behti Hai (1960), Mera Naam Joker (1970), Bobby (1973), Satyam Shivam Sundaram (1978), Prem Rog (1982) and Ram Teri Ganga Maili(1985).
Raj Kapoor's sons also made movies here -- Randhir Kapoor completed his father's last fim Heena while Rajeev Kapoor made Premgranth and Rishi Kapoor directed Aa Ab Laut Chalen.
Ranbir Kapoor, Raj Kapoor's grandson, wants to revive the RK banner.
YRF Studios
Yash Raj Studios was built in 2006 by Yash Chopra.
Designed by his elder son Aditya Chopra, it is equipped with high-tech shooting equipment, and covers 20 acres on seven floors.
The first film to be shot here was 2006's Fanaa, followed by Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (2008), Band Baaja Baraat (2010), Ishaqzaade (2012), Ek Tha Tiger (2012) and many more.
Designed by his elder son Aditya Chopra, it is equipped with high-tech shooting equipment, and covers 20 acres on seven floors.
The first film to be shot here was 2006's Fanaa, followed by Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (2008), Band Baaja Baraat (2010), Ishaqzaade (2012), Ek Tha Tiger (2012) and many more.
Filmistan Studio
Filmistan was founded in 1943-1944 by filmmaker Shashdhar Mukherjee, who was instrumental in introducing Ashok Kumar to the movies. His granddaughter is Kajol.
Some of the films shot here are Krissh 3, Yamla Pagla Deewana, Delhi 6 and Partner.
Some of the films shot here are Krissh 3, Yamla Pagla Deewana, Delhi 6 and Partner.
Filmalaya Studio
Also founded by Shashdhar Mukherjee, Filmalaya Studio is currently co-owned by his older brother's son Ram Mukherjee (Rani Mukerji's father) and his sons Rono and Shubir Mukherjee.
Nasir Husain's Dil Deke Dekho (1959) was the first film to be shot here, followed by Love in Simla, Leader, Chhaila Babu and Hum Hindustani.
Nasir Husain's Dil Deke Dekho (1959) was the first film to be shot here, followed by Love in Simla, Leader, Chhaila Babu and Hum Hindustani.
BIG ND Studio
In 2005, the wellknown art director Nitin Chandrakant Desai opened the ND Studio on 52 acres of land.
Later, Reliance Entertainment took a 50 per cent stake; it is now called BIG ND Studio.
Some films filmed here are Jodhaa Akbar, Action Replayy, Ishqiya, Traffic Signal and Lage Raho Munnabhai.
Mehboob Studio
Mehboob Studio was built by the legendary filmmaker Mehboob Khan, who filmed Mother India, here.
Other landmark movies shot here include Guru Dutt's Kaagaz Ke Phool and Dev Anand's Hum Dono and Guide.
Dev Anand liked the studio so much that he rented an office here for 20 years.
Salman Khan prefers to shoot his movies here, as the studio is located near his home in Bandra.
Famous Studios
Some films shot here: Taj Mahal, Seeta Aur Geeta, Kanyadaan and Hum Saath Saath Hain.
Chandivali Studios
Chandivali Studios was founded by actor-filmmaker Chandrarao Kadam in 1940.
Some films shot here are Deewar, Karz, Coolie, Mard, Tridev, Tezaab, Dil Se, Black Friday, Veer-Zaara, Dev and Lafangey Parinde.
Some films shot here are Deewar, Karz, Coolie, Mard, Tridev, Tezaab, Dil Se, Black Friday, Veer-Zaara, Dev and Lafangey Parinde.
Ranjit Movietone
Ranjit Movietone, also known as Ranjit studios, was founded in 1929 by director-producer Sardar Chandulal Shah and singer-actress-producer Gohar.
The studio started with silent movies like Bikharan and later made talkies like Devi Devyani.
The studio started with silent movies like Bikharan and later made talkies like Devi Devyani.
After Chandulal Shah's death in 1965, films were no longer shot at Ranjit studio, but it has become a historic monument.
Dadasaheb Phalke Chitranagari
Dadasaheb Phalke Chitranagari -- popularly known as Film City -- was built by the Maharashtra government to provide facilities and concessions to the film industry.
Some films shot here: Sholay, Kala Pathar, The Burning Train, Karz, Lawaaris, Maine Pyar Kiya, Chandni, Diwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge, 3 IdiotsandKrrish.
Some films shot here: Sholay, Kala Pathar, The Burning Train, Karz, Lawaaris, Maine Pyar Kiya, Chandni, Diwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge, 3 IdiotsandKrrish.
rediff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)