There's an ageing lunatic in Bombay (I insist on calling the city the way I choose to) and two mad cousins. They are the dogs of regionalist and linguistic wars. They have written their personal Mein Kampfs on how to come to power. These morons are of the view that only people who speak Marathi and are Marathi should live in Maharashtra. But for a small army of trash, the rest of the state does not support them. They use different weapons, from pamphlets to newspapers, to lathis and swords, to achieve their end. .
There's none they haven't targetted. I suppose it is a dubious distinction for anyone of importance not to be in their list of punishables. Sachin Tendulkar was one such, till recently. Now he has lost that distinction too.
The ageing lunatic is angry with Sachin because he said he is an Indian, while being a Maharashtrian. Because he said language, like caste and creed, do not bar any Indian from any place in India his or her home. That's blashphemous, the lunatic fringe concluded. So, they targetted the batsman.
The ageing lunatic wrote that Sachin has done nothing for Maharashtra through cricket. Do they expect him to stop playing for India until all the final eleven are from the same state? Do they expect the cricket team to speak in Marathi while in Maharashtra?
Someone was heard saying: The lunatics should be arrested. The question is: Why havent' they been arrested already?
Monday, November 23, 2009
Living with Liberhan
The family was discussing the Liberhan Commission report on November 23, 2009. Apparently an Indian newspaper got hold of sections of the report. An Indian news channel followed it up with studio discussions throughout the day. The last one was the family discussion. This is a highily knit family. You can see them, or a combination of them, on this channel almost every day. It is more of a Mutual Admiration Society of editors, bureaucrats and politicians, present and past. They debate and argue on things national and societal and political, for appearances sake. Because the family comes first. So what if in the process they are evidence of the nexus between the Indian media and politics. They arrogate to themselves the right to think on behalf of India and Indians. They are arrogant enough to pass off heresays as facts. They are the self-styled arbiters of the Indian mind. They play out a P3 game show every evening.
On November 23 the family was discussing the Liberhan Leak and its implications. After a marathon session, they labelled the report as a joke, the findings as dumb and concluded it was not worth the paper it was written on. And they went home, happily after telling the Indian audience they could go on demolishing temples and mosques and churches and even zoos and latrines with impunity and without fear of punishment. They concluded that the Indian state was a non-governable body.
The fact they forgot to mention, intentionally, was that they being a part of that very same society and politics they were laughing at, they should be laughed at, too.
Barkha Dutt was as usual anchoring the show. Vir Sanghvi and Swapan Dasgupta were the editorial pulpits. Shekhar Gupta was not present as it was his paper, the Indian Express, which apparently printed the Liberhan Leak. The rest of the cast were the usual political suspects who are distinguishable from the channel staff because of the sheer fact that they do'nt as yet carry the channel ID.
The issue was whom to blame for the demolition of the Babri Masjid. That question was twisted a number of times until the issue was whom did Liberhan indict for the demolition. Another round of twists and it was who should pay the price for the demolition. Yet another twist turned the issue into what took Liberhan 17 years to come out with the report. And so it went on for two hours.
They managed to steer the blame away from the BJP and towards the Congress. They were merciless in attacking a person now dead: PN Narasimha Rao, who as Prime Minister in 1992, remained silent as the Masjid came down. The collective idea was to protect the current leadership of both parties, the Congress and the BJP. To make the family secular, the head of the Muslim Personal Law Board was invited to the table. To make it unbiased, a former bad boy who founded the lumpen arm of the BJP was also invited. They were the props, because the air time was entirely for the family alone.
I think most Indian journalists may have watched this show on the channel, mostly because they had nothing else to do or they couhldn't find a table at the Press Club. Most of them may have worked for, with or under the family members at least once in their careers and so, would know, if they cared to, how these members have made a volte face in these 17 years. Archives would show what they said in 1992 and what they said on November 23, 2009. Possibly, as members of the global village of India, they decided that religious quibblings did not go down well with a march towards globalisation. They were in a hurry to forget what happened in 1992. That is why the reiteration, irrespective of right, left or centre, that 17 long years have passed since the demolition. That is why the reiteration that the Liberhan report is a sham and cannot lead to any judicial conviction for the accused. Let sleeping karsewaks lie. That's their motto.
What a shame to call them journalists or politicians or bureaucrats.
On November 23 the family was discussing the Liberhan Leak and its implications. After a marathon session, they labelled the report as a joke, the findings as dumb and concluded it was not worth the paper it was written on. And they went home, happily after telling the Indian audience they could go on demolishing temples and mosques and churches and even zoos and latrines with impunity and without fear of punishment. They concluded that the Indian state was a non-governable body.
The fact they forgot to mention, intentionally, was that they being a part of that very same society and politics they were laughing at, they should be laughed at, too.
Barkha Dutt was as usual anchoring the show. Vir Sanghvi and Swapan Dasgupta were the editorial pulpits. Shekhar Gupta was not present as it was his paper, the Indian Express, which apparently printed the Liberhan Leak. The rest of the cast were the usual political suspects who are distinguishable from the channel staff because of the sheer fact that they do'nt as yet carry the channel ID.
The issue was whom to blame for the demolition of the Babri Masjid. That question was twisted a number of times until the issue was whom did Liberhan indict for the demolition. Another round of twists and it was who should pay the price for the demolition. Yet another twist turned the issue into what took Liberhan 17 years to come out with the report. And so it went on for two hours.
They managed to steer the blame away from the BJP and towards the Congress. They were merciless in attacking a person now dead: PN Narasimha Rao, who as Prime Minister in 1992, remained silent as the Masjid came down. The collective idea was to protect the current leadership of both parties, the Congress and the BJP. To make the family secular, the head of the Muslim Personal Law Board was invited to the table. To make it unbiased, a former bad boy who founded the lumpen arm of the BJP was also invited. They were the props, because the air time was entirely for the family alone.
I think most Indian journalists may have watched this show on the channel, mostly because they had nothing else to do or they couhldn't find a table at the Press Club. Most of them may have worked for, with or under the family members at least once in their careers and so, would know, if they cared to, how these members have made a volte face in these 17 years. Archives would show what they said in 1992 and what they said on November 23, 2009. Possibly, as members of the global village of India, they decided that religious quibblings did not go down well with a march towards globalisation. They were in a hurry to forget what happened in 1992. That is why the reiteration, irrespective of right, left or centre, that 17 long years have passed since the demolition. That is why the reiteration that the Liberhan report is a sham and cannot lead to any judicial conviction for the accused. Let sleeping karsewaks lie. That's their motto.
What a shame to call them journalists or politicians or bureaucrats.
Pitching Against Brown
City Nation Edit Op-Ed Business The Big Story World VivaCity Avenues Sports Columnists Forecast Editor's Mail
STATE EDITIONS Bhopal Bhubaneswar Ranchi Kochi Lucknow Chandigarh Dehradun
SUNDAY PIONEER Agenda Foray
FORAY Sunday, November 22, 2009 Email Print
Pitching against Brown
Venkata Vemuri
The gunny bags from Afghanistan are now veritable millstones around Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s neck. Growing calls for a pullout of British troops have put him on the defensive and for all practical purposes he has begun a countdown for Britain’s exit from the war in Afghanistan.That is how the British media sees the Prime Minister’s most recent announcement for a meeting of Nato allies in London next January to set in motion the process of transfer — a district-by-district transfer to full Afghan control in 2010.His office says the proposed meeting is no exit summit, but it is more Brown’s way of reassuring an anxious public that the British mission in Afghanistan is not indefinite. Deaths of British soldiers are being reported almost on a daily basis in recent weeks and calls by their relatives to bring back the troops are gaining popular support.The Prime Minister’s aides are saying Brown is unhappy that the people do not realise that it is the British presence in Afghanistan that is keeping the country safe from terrorism. Yet, Brown’s Nato summit call is being seen as a matter of political expedience, given his unenviable task of leading Labour into a General Election next year amid growing public frustration with unchecked unemployment and price rise.His own Cabinet is also at unease with the rising death toll which stands at 230 at last count. Welsh secretary Peter Hains became the first Cabinet Minister to question the Government’s Afghanistan strategy by openly saying earlier this week that “we need to get a grip on it”.Black & WhiteAs if Brown’s headaches are not enough, a Labour candidate seeking election to a London council caused much embarrassment to the Prime Minister just a day before this Wednesday’s Queen’s speech before both Houses of Parliament by calling her a “parasite” and “vermin”.Peter White, who is seeking election to Havering Borough Council next year, posted a message on the Facebook page of a Conservative MP, Andrew Rosindell, who wanted the Queen’s diamond jubilee in 2012 be celebrated with a national holiday.The message says: “What is the point of celebrating the Diamond Jubilee of someone who is born into a position of privilege, she is a parasite and milks this country for everything she can… Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with a public holiday but lets (sic) have one that means something, rather than celebrating vermin.”White has been summoned by his party for an explanation and possibly his words may cost him his candidature.Dravid-ianSachin Tendulkar was, of course, the cynosure of British media when he completed 20 years as a cricketer, but The Times’ kudos went to Rahul Dravid for an entirely different reason: The fitness of the Indian “Wall”.The newspaper says it is largely due to Dravid’s “astounding fitness” that he is only less than 2,000 runs behind Tendulkar in Tests even though he made his debut seven years after the little master.Highlighting the fact that Dravid missed out on just one test out of 135 India played since his debut, it says: “… but otherwise has had no tweaked thingies, no sprained whatsits, no snuffles and coughs, no selectorial whims, no missing the bus, no disciplinary breaches, no excuses. Tendulkar, by contrast, has played in only 121 of those games. Even Gods can have mortal moments.”Wi-fi zoneThe town of Swindon in England is to become the country’s first wi-fi town with free Internet access for its population. Nearly £1 million will be spent in placing 1,400 access points on street lamps, ensuring no one within the town’s boundary is left out of range of a wireless connection after next April.The free access will, however, be limited to certain hours in a day. Swindon, home to a number of high-tech businesses, already has the country’s highest broadband usage. The service will also be available to visitors to the town, upon payment of a one-off fee for access.There are many towns and cities of Britain whose city centres have free wi-fi, but Swindon will be the first case of the whole town having wireless access.Fake incestThe British Home Office is ever on the prowl to deport illegal immigrants, but is shut-eyed when it comes to checking on its own staff. A Nigerian, who works in the Home Office, came up with a daring plan, that included him ‘marrying’ his own daughter, to get British visas for his family back home, and nearly succeeded.Jelili Adesanya, employed as an occupational health nurse for the Home Office working with immigration officials at Gatwick airport, has been a British resident for 30 years and holds a British passport. He wanted his daughter, her husband and their children to live in the UK. So, he faked a wedding ceremony in Lagos and fooled British officials into giving his daughter permission to live in the UK by making them believe she was his wife. Had the case not been exposed, the next step in the saga would have been the ‘wife’ eventually divorcing her ‘husband’ and then marrying her real husband so that the entire family could then stay in the UK.A whistleblower sent letters — including specific details such as names, addresses, passport numbers and even a copy of the wedding photograph — to the High Commission in Lagos and the UK Border Agency. When nothing happened, he emailed then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and Ministers Vernon Coaker and Phil Woolas this February. He heard nothing. The Home Office eventually launched action after the incident was reported by the media.
Outsider Tirade Goes On
City Nation Edit Op-Ed Business The Big Story World VivaCity Avenues Sports Columnists Forecast Editor's Mail
STATE EDITIONS Bhopal Bhubaneswar Ranchi Kochi Lucknow Chandigarh Dehradun
SUNDAY PIONEER Agenda Foray
FORAY Sunday, November 15, 2009 Email Print
Outsider tirade goes on
Venkata Vemuri
Immigration is a sensitive word to utter in Westminster ever since Nick Griffin of the right-wing British National Party came on BBC’s Question Time. One, Prime Minister Gordon Brown finds to his annoyance, he cannot either swallow or spit it out. But ever since Griffin said the country’s population would shortly cross 70 million if the immigrants were not kept out, there has been a churning in Labour ranks on how to deal with the issue.Someone in Brown’s team must have suggested that the way out with minimum political damage is to acknowledge that uncontrolled immigration is problematic. A private poll by the Unite trade union showed that immigration is the most burning political issue for Labour supporters with the potential of turning them towards even the BNP, or not making them vote at all.And the Prime Minister spoke out, promising to tighten the immigration rules by reducing the number of professions which can recruit from outside Europe. It was, perhaps, his first speech on the issue of immigration since he took office.Here is what he said: “We will remove more occupations and therefore thousands more posts from the list of those eligible for entry under the points-based system.” The BBC thinks engineers, skilled chefs and care workers could be among the affected professionals.But Brown’s next utterance on the larger immigration debate unmasks his real motive in speaking about immigration without any, as the media says, news peg. “I have never agreed with the lazy elitism that dismisses immigration as an issue, or portrays anyone who has concerns about immigration as a racist. Immigration is not an issue for fringe parties nor a taboo subject.It is a question at the heart of our politics, a question about what it means to be British; about the values we hold dear and the responsibilities we expect of those coming into our country; about how we secure the skills we need to compete in the global economy; about how we preserve and strengthen our communities.”The British media was quick to point out that the speech will be seen as an effort to give meaning to his promise of “British jobs for British workers”. Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: “Gordon Brown's speech had a completely hollow ring to it. This is the Government that tried to cover up a deliberate policy of increasing immigration and the Prime Minister's comments show that he has no idea about how to deal with the whole question of immigration now.”Your turn, Griffin. Creating waves Surfers of Bournemouth on England’s south coast always complained that their coast gets poor-quality waves. So the city council parted with £3 million for an artificial surf reef. Europe’s first. The reef opened recently after the completion of a two-year construction project, 200 metres offshore and to the east of Boscombe Pier, the main beach head of Bournemouth, which saw 55 giant sandbags covering an area the size of a football pitch laid on the sea floor.When winds sweep the coast, the ensuing groundswells — which used to slump on to the beach as weak waves earlier — are helped by the reef to turn into head-high waves which are ridable. The council feels it will have its return on investment in no time as hundreds of surfers now throng the beach.Vigil 24X7A British citizen is watched and monitored by the State surveillance apparatus like no other in the world. And now comes a law which requires telecom companies and Internet service providers to keep a record of every customer’s personal communications, showing who they are contacting, when, where and which websites they are visiting.As per the new rules, known as the Intercept Modernisation Programme, public authorities will not be able to view the contents of these emails or phone calls, but they can see the Internet addresses, dates, times and users of telephone numbers and texts.They will not require the permission of a judge or a magistrate to access the information, but simply the authorisation of a senior police officer or the equivalent of a deputy head of department at a local authority.But there is little support for the law among the public. The British Home Office admitted last week that only a third of respondents to its six-month consultation on the issue supported the new proposal, with half of them fearing that the scheme lacked sufficient safeguards to protect the highly personal data from abuse.The Conservatives made known their opposition by describing the move as “Mission Creep”. Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights body Liberty, warned: “Law-abiding people have sustained too many blanket attacks on their privacy and they’ve had enough.” Queer bandsBritish teen girls may be banned from wearing harmless looking, prettily coloured jelly bracelets that are freely available in stores. The problem is not with the bracelets, but a sexual game they are associated with.Apparently each colour denotes a type of sexual act. And when a boy snaps a bracelet with a particular colour, the girl will have to perform the act that colour denotes. A yellow bracelet denotes a simple hug. A blue one means oral sex. Other colours signify escalating grades of sexual activity. A black bracelet means going the whole way.These are popularly known as “shag bands” which have become popular across the country and parents are horrified that even children who do not understand the significance of wearing them – primary schoolers as young as 8 – are aware of what the bands signify.The concept of the “shag band” is not new. There were similar bracelets in the ’80s and ‘90s and were known in some schools in the UK as “f*** me” bracelets. In the USA they are called “snopes”.The protests have already begun. The leading voice is of Mary Creagh, MP from Wakefiled in northern England, who wants the bands banned. “There is nothing intrinsically wrong with plastic bracelets — you can’t ban plastic bands — but there is something offensive about packaging and marketing something as a ‘shag band’ and having it on sale unrestricted,” she says.The Carmarthenshire County Council, in Wales, has moved to ban the bracelets, which sell for as little as 75p for a pack of six.But one teacher on the Times Educational Supplement website writes: “They are bracelets — nothing more, nothing less. If the kids wearing them want to attach silly labels to them, let them. I very much doubt they actually act on it.”
Sir Mark's Guinea Ghost
City Nation Edit Op-Ed Business The Big Story World VivaCity Avenues Sports Columnists Forecast Editor's Mail
STATE EDITIONS Bhopal Bhubaneswar Ranchi Kochi Lucknow Chandigarh Dehradun
SUNDAY PIONEER Agenda Foray
FORAY Sunday, November 8, 2009 Email Print
Sir Mark’s Guinea ghost
Venkata Vemuri
The past keeps pursuing Sir Mark, the son of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. His alleged role in a plan to overthrow the Government of Equatorial Guinea in western Africa in 2004 has come back to haunt him with another accused now saying the alleged coup plotters including Sir Mark should “face justice”.A former SAS officer, Simon Mann, said to be the second in command of the plotting team, has returned to London earlier this week after being pardoned and released from jail in Equatorial Guinea. He now wants to be a witness for the prosecution in Britain and has implicated Sir Mark and a London-based businessman, Ely Calil, for planning and financing the coup.The plotters wanted to overthrow Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, President of Equatorial Guinea. However, Mann and 70 mercenaries were arrested at Harare airport in Zimbabwe in 2004. Extradited to Equatorial Guinea, he was sent to prison for 34 years. But Mann was released after serving only 16 months and officials in London said among the factors believed to have played a part in his release was his willingness to give evidence against others.As to Sir Mark, he was arrested by the South African police in 2004, and the following year he admitted financing a helicopter and received a suspended sentence and a fine of £265,000.Mann said: “As far as I’m concerned, I am very anxious that Calil, Thatcher and one or two of the others, should face justice.” Sources said that the only likelihood of any prosecution would be if Mann turned Queen’s Evidence, offering him immunity in return for giving evidence against others. Sir Mark did not comment.Booze buzzAlcohol abuse is a ticking time bomb in Britain and there are now calls for increasing the minimum drinking age and pricing controls on alcohol after it was revealed more and more minors and retired people are taking to it. The Government has not yet reacted to the issue which is fast becoming the British media’s talking point, after a recent survey revealed that one-third of children aged 11 to 15 who drink, consume more than 15 units in a week, the equivalent of seven pints of lager or one-and-a-half bottles of average strength wine. It means 178,560 children in England are consuming more alcohol in a week than the recommended limit for an adult woman.The survey conducted in all the police station area if England and Scotland showed that younger people are being struck with liver cirrhosis than ever before. Just under one-fifth of children or 558,000 children, aged 11 to 15-year-old have consumed alcohol. The amount of alcohol children are taking, on average, has increased from 5.3 units in 1990 to 9.2 units in 2007.Pensioners too accounted for 357,300 alcohol-related hospital admissions in England in 2007-8, a 75 per cent rise in just five years. The survey found that 13 per cent of over-60s said that they had drunk more since retiring, either to ease feelings of depression or because of bereavement.All goofed upHe’s called the Minister for gaffes in British Parliament. And the latest by Home Office Minister Phil Woolas provoked fury in the House by claiming British troops are fighting in Afghanistan in part to keep immigration under control.Woolas told some members of Parliament during a meeting of the home affairs select committee: “If this country and others were to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan and the Taliban were able to take control of Afghanistan, our evidence is that the number of asylum seekers coming to the EU would significantly increase. An argument that is not aired strongly enough in my view is the benefit of the presence of our armed forces and other countries is to help us control immigration.”The opposition benches vent their anger against the Government as his comments came on the very day five British soldiers were killed allegedly by a rogue Afghan police constable.Fun signsThe Times newspaper has launched its third annual competition for the funniest road signs in Britain. Sample some of them:
Bedlam (in North Yorkshire): Please drive carefully
Big Sand (in Wester Ross, Highland): No Beach Access
Bleary (near Co Armagh): Welcome to Bleary
Old (in Northamptonshire): Please drive carefully.
Pocket Full of Woes
City Nation Edit Op-Ed Business The Big Story World VivaCity Avenues Sports Columnists Forecast Editor's Mail
STATE EDITIONS Bhopal Bhubaneswar Ranchi Kochi Lucknow Chandigarh Dehradun
SUNDAY PIONEER Agenda Foray
FORAY Sunday, November 1, 2009 Email Print
Pocket full of woes
Venkata Vemuri
British MPs are gearing up to discuss a major issue in the august House next week. No, it’s not about recession or the postal strike or even the EU presidential election. It’s about their allowances which are facing an executive axe.Following the MPs’ expenses scandal which exposed scores of members misusing their allowances, a Parliamentary watchdog is planning to reform the system of allowances. The move has been greeted with predictable howls of outrage from some at Westmin-ster.Some of these measures leaked to the Press include:
Parachute payments worth up to £65,000 for MPs standing down will be phased out after the next election.
The scrapping of the £25-a-day subsistence payment for food, introduced in the spring.
Those living within an hour's commute of Westminster will not be allowed to claim expenses for a second home. MPs will only be allowed to rent flats costing up to £1,250 a month.
MPs will be barred from employing family members in their offices; order MPs to sack currently employed relatives within five years.
Claims for food, furniture, mortgages and some other items will be prohibited.But more than the MPs, it is their wives who are crying foul over the expected harsh measures. More than 200 MPs currently employ spouses and other family members. Some wives have already consulted their union representatives and are threatening to take legal action if they are forced to quit. The MPs are insisting they should not be punished because of a few bad apples. The wife of Conservative MP from North Thanet, Roger Gale, who is employed by him, says: "I was very well qualified to do the job when I first started, coming up for 27 years ago, and I'm still very well qualified so am I not allowed to apply for my own job anymore?" Bra-vo!Tabloid press in Cambridge? True, and it is ruffling the feathers of the university's tradition-bound gentry. Some students are bringing out a tabloid, The Tab, complete with its Page 3 girls. It appears online and provides the latest celebrity gossip and sport news and has proved hugely popular with 80,000 hits in its first week.There’s a Totty section featuring scantily-clad women students and features like Bra-vo about the large bra sizes of Cambridge students. The university's traditional student Press is furious, and the student union’s women’s officer Natalie Szarek has called for the Tab Totty section to be axed from the site.She claims the pictures “reproduce and reinforce harmful attitudes towards women. Semi-naked women in provocative positions are being shoved in freshers’ faces. We can do better as a university,” she adds.Three male students who paid £500 each to set up the website say the students' union is a "sad dinosaur" which is upset that The Tab is stealing readers from traditional university papers like Varsity and Cambridge Student. One of the trio, third-year student Taymoor Atighetchi, says: “There’s a huge amount of snobbery around. We do not think what we are doing is sexist. It was always our intention to have a debate about these issues. The website is a tongue-in-cheek version of the tabloid newspaper — we are not just emulating it.”Racist overdriveA major debate in British schools these days is on what construes as a racist spat among schoolchildren. As of now, under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, schools in England and Wales have to report “racist incidents” to local authorities. Teachers are made to fill in lengthy forms about name-calling, jokes etc. A recent report says, an estimated 2,50,000 racist incidents have been reported in schools since 2002. But a civil liberties group The Manifesto Group, questions the numbers, saying children are being branded racist before they even know what the term means and playground spats are being turned into full-blown racial incidents.The Group has brought out a report— The Myth of Racist Kids — which lists 5,000 incidents in Yorkshire schools between 2006/07, the majority of which were in primary schools. In Essex, most incidents involved children between the ages of nine and 11.The report’s author Adrian Hart says: “Such actions (by teachers) can create divisions where none existed. There are a small number of cases of sustained targeted bullying, and schools certainly need to deal with those. But most of these 'racist incidents' are just kids falling out. They don't need re-educating out of their prejudice — they and their teachers need to be left alone.”However, schools minister Diana Johnson says: “If racist bullying is not dealt with in schools, then this will send a powerful message to children that racism is acceptable — not only in schools but in society as a whole.”Fat chanceObesity is slowly becoming a national dilemma. One out of four Britons is obese and latest figures reveal that in the last year obesity-related admissions to hospitals jumped by 60 per cent.There were 8,085 admissions to hospital for obesity in 2008-09, up from 5,056 the previous year and 1,746 in 2003-04, official figures from the NHS Information Centre show.The figures were released just a week after it emerged that the world’s heaviest man could be airlifted from his home in Ipswich for specialist care. Paul Mason, 48, a former engineer who weighs 70 stone, is due to undergo surgery to help him lose weight but struggles to leave his home.And it’s already telling on the National Health Service which is spending taxpayers’ money to buy wider and sturdier hospital beds, ambulances and lifting equipment.Surgery is officially the first line treatment for patients with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of more than 50. Some of the surgical procedures cost up to £12,000.
This Is Not Breaking News
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 New Delhi Today's Issue
Home ePaper
City Nation Edit Op-Ed Business The Big Story World VivaCity Avenues Sports Columnists Forecast Editor's Mail
STATE EDITIONS Bhopal Bhubaneswar Ranchi Kochi Lucknow Chandigarh Dehradun
SUNDAY PIONEER Agenda Foray
OPED Tuesday, December 16, 2008 Email Print
This is not breaking news
Venkata Vemuri
Trivialising a terrorist strike story by making its coverage indistinguishable from that of a sensational story has left 24x7 news channels looking utterly silly and frightfully immature. Broadcast journalism in India is no longer in its infancy and its practitioners claim they are masters at their job. It's time for them to prove itI was a broadcast journalist in India and so when news about the string of terror attacks in Mumbai broke on the evening of November 26, I knew exactly what to expect from the television channels there. They would 'break' the news, send their OB vans to the spot and lay siege to it, the coverage will be characterised by visuals running in loops, anchors and field reporters saying the same thing over and over again, bringing 'experts' into their studios, introducing a sentimental element of how 'Bharat' is under attack, churning out labels like '9/11' or something like 'maut ka aatank', trying to solve the mystery about the attackers by themselves, apportioning blame on the police for 'arriving late', and finally, ensuring that everything put out on the screen in 'exclusive'.The news channels, by and large, did not belie my expectations. And that is the point of this article. Whether it is a story about a stampede in a temple, a boy falling into a manhole, a thief being beaten up by the public, the Sensex going up or down, or an act of terrorism, the treatment by channels more or less follows the above routine. If one cares to go through the archives, one would find a striking similarity in even the words and phrases used then and now. Indian journalists have been reporting on conflicts and terrorism for over two decades now, from the militancy in Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and the North-Eastern States, the low-intensity conflict on the India-Pakistan border, and in recent years, the number of attacks on several Indian cities -- even the Indian Parliament -- by terrorist groups.What is missing from reporting on terrorism in India, unfortunately, is the big picture, not only in terms of (a) exhaustive reportage on the event, but also in terms of (b) the geopolitical impact in the global sense.The first points to the gullibility of the journalists, the second to their lack of awareness. Whether both notions are wrong and such impressions are primarily caused by the newsroom chaos in handling breaking news, it is up to the channels to introspect.Keeping cool in breaking news situations is a basic tenet of journalism. A channel's coverage depends on it. Every news channel has its own editorial crisis news committee that oversees how breaking news is treated. But somewhere along the way, things snap.Often it is found there is no one in the newsroom drawing up coverage plans and directing the news team. But it is the 'live' element that dictates the coverage plan. As a result, a dish-it-as-it-comes mentality takes over. It is the duty of the newsroom seniors to ensure that information is not repeated throughout the news wheel, but is refreshed frequently. It is true that new information is flashed as soon as it comes, but it does not stand out in the general melee of visual loops and continuous, non-informative chats.In the initial hours of the Mumbai attacks, foreign channels were far ahead with factual information, which they culled out from blogs and chat rooms -- inputs coming from the guests in the hotels -- and strengthened with details from interviews, including with guests at the two hotels attacked by the terrorists.Broadcast journalism in India is no longer in its infancy and many of its practitioners have reported on conflicts worldwide and, therefore, there is no excuse for substandard coverage of such a serious issue. Secrecy and chaos on part of the official agencies and lack of access by journalists both played a role in this blank phase of news on the second day. Indian journalists, routinely attuned to covering crime, often find it difficult to cope with such situations. How to keep their channels moving forward? Lack of knowledge about the country's anti-terrorism apparatus, the types of agencies and personnel involved, and general information about their operational techniques hindered the journalists. Uninformed theories, reporters' opinions, even rumours were reported as news.Such reportage looks childish. Like, for instance, a channel showed its reporter, standing at the back of one of the Mumbai hotels, telling the audience that the police were clever enough to post themselves at the hotel's rear so that the terrorists would not be able to escape unnoticed. And that was an 'exclusive' report! Of course, the security agencies themselves exhibited an unprofessional manner in the way they happily chatted with the media about the operations. They did not even cordon off the hotels -- the first rule at a crime scene -- and the presence of media and onlookers turned the entire event into a 'tamasha'. And yet the Government had the gumption to issue notices to some news channels on coverage of the operations. Funny! But the point to ponder is: If a channel gets information of an ongoing security operation, should it use it with discretion to ensure that broadcast of such information does not harm the operation itself?What Indian broadcast journalism should now look for is specialised reporting on terrorism. Treating a terrorist strike story in the same way as a child falling into a manhole will not help, simply because news channels influence people's perceptions and an unprofessional approach to news dissemination can result in inappropriate fallouts. Also, terrorism is not a domestic issue restricted to the borders of one country. There was no attempt to see the strikes in the perspective of the global, or even sub-continental, spread of terrorism. This calls for journalists undergoing training programmes in terrorism reporting, on the lines of conflict reporting.It is also vital to develop a professional attitude when dealing with terrorism and not giving in to bouts of sentimentality and competition. It is professional to break the news first, but a race to break it can be hazardous in such situations, with accuracy, objectivity and credibility being the first victims.-- The writer is a senior Indian journalist, currently doing his PhD in the UK. vevemuri@gmail.com
We Need Nuclear Tests
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 New Delhi Today's Issue
Home ePaper
City Nation Edit Op-Ed Business The Big Story World VivaCity Avenues Sports Columnists Forecast Editor's Mail
STATE EDITIONS Bhopal Bhubaneswar Ranchi Kochi Lucknow Chandigarh Dehradun
SUNDAY PIONEER Agenda Foray
OPED Tuesday, July 15, 2008 Email Print
We need nuclear tests
Venkata Vemuri
When will India stand up for its own rights? The ongoing debate on the India-US nuclear deal skirts long-term issues linked to India's nuclear deterrence. It's facetious to describe the deal, as it exists, as good for India -- it is exactly the oppositeThe level of political debate in India on the nuclear deal with the US is as abysmal as the surreptitious attempt by the Indian bureaucracy to push it through on the ground that it is a matter of 'national pride'. Neither the Left, nor the Opposition, and certainly not the Manmohan Singh Government, has taken the people of India into confidence on the real issues that are of concern.These issues are crucial for India's long-term foreign and nuclear policies. We should be more concerned with India's strategic role vis-?-vis a futuristic -- but possible -- stand-off between China and the US, rather than the short-term gains in terms of nuclear energy or the one-upmanship game with Pakistan. India is already capable of tackling the last two.Let us proceed step by step. What did we achieve after the 1998 nuclear tests? It is an unspoken truth that the tests failed to validate some of India's warhead designs. Couple this with the fact that India is yet to possess comprehensive missile technology which can deliver warheads up to China, not merely Pakistan. Only when we have such a combination can we be confident that India has a credible nuclear deterrent. How do we reach that stage? By conducting more nuclear tests while continuing to make progress with the missile systems.Is India in a position to conduct more nuclear tests? India has offered a voluntary moratorium on further nuclear testing. If the nuclear deal comes through, the moratorium will no longer be voluntary, but legally binding on us. The proposed amendment to the US law that will make the nuclear deal official is that the American President will, from time to time, certify that India has not tested a nuclear device. Which means, if India conducts a test in the future, the deal becomes void.So, without a nuclear test, any thought of becoming a nuclear power or having a credible nuclear deterrent is a pipe dream.Then comes the issue related to availability of fissionable material for nuclear weaponisation. India has agreed, under the draft agreement of the deal, to identify and separate civil and military nuclear programmes. India has also agreed to place the civil facilities under IAEA safeguards. There are two issues here. First, the deal will not overnight give India the status of a nuclear weapons state. Far from it. It will be recognised as a non-nuclear weapons state which is not a signatory to the NPT. To that extent, India will be better off than Pakistan. That is not what India will be satisfied with, but has no option but to accept it. Second, once the civil facilities are under IAEA safeguards, there will be restrictions on the fissionable material for use in India's military facilities. India's nuclear doctrine depends on the availability of this material. For, the number of nuclear warheads India wishes to have to achieve the critical state of deterrence is determined by, first of all, India's threat perception and next, the material available for weaponisation. According to India's nuclear doctrine as it stands today, the limit of critical deterrence depends on its threat perception. Which means India can increase its nuclear stockpile if the threat perception increases. Such a doctrine allows India the advantage of not having to tie itself to a certain number of warheads. However, the IAEA safeguards will mean, at least theoretically, a weakened deterrence if India's adversaries increase their stockpiles. For, in such a situation, increasing India's own stockpile will depend on how much un-safeguarded material is available to it.According to an AP report on the draft of the safeguards agreement, a "key clause appears to call into question the effectiveness of any IAEA effort to ensure India's civilian nuclear activities do not aid its military's atomic weapons programme". The draft agreement in the preamble talks of India taking "corrective measures" to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civil nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of supplies. Possibly the only 'corrective measure' is India withdrawing some of the safeguarded civil facilities from the IAEA list so that the fissionable material can be used for military purposes. Having said that, the safeguards issue is not as serious as the moratorium on testing. It is well known that India has the capability to develop its own nuclear plants. Moreover, despite the agreement it will remain India's right to classify future nuclear plants as civil or military, thus giving the country an escape valve.What the entire debate on the deal boils down to, is this: Does India feel it requires a credible nuclear deterrent against China? If so, it has to clearly state its position before the current form of the deal is signed. Otherwise, its dream of having a credible deterrent and being a major nuclear power is washed out. Yes, India needs a nuclear deterrent against China insofar as its future geo-political stakes are concerned. Then why is the UPA Government shying away from stating this to the US? One point that goes in India's favour -- and a very vital one at that -- is that the US cannot face a standoff with China without the support of India. For facing China, both need each other. It is also true that the US excursions into Asia have a black and bleak record of failure. Vietnam, for example. In the future, any standoff with China can only be on the issue of Taiwan. And the odds of the US going it alone, without India's aid, are high. Let us just assume that the current deal actually goes through. Theoretically it is possible that the US itself may go in for nuclear testing in the future, thus allowing India to do so too. How is that possible? The current deal has a clause which says that India will assume responsibilities and reap the same benefits as accruing to states with advanced nuclear technology like the US. The flip side, however, is what if the US does not undertake tests in future? It is a big if.The nuclear deal by itself does not much harm Indian interests as long as India retains the right to conduct nuclear tests in the future. Indian bureaucrats, like the messy mice that they are, are already indulging in vacuous arguments that India's moratorium on tests is unilateral and, therefore, what is a unilateral proposition cannot be bound by an agreement. The why not get this included in the piece of paper?India is at present in a political turmoil over the deal. It may all come to a naught if the deal is not passed in the current session of the US Congress. The basic legal paper of the deal, called the Hyde Act, 2006, has a provision that the final agreement between the US and India can be taken up by the Congress for passage only if the Congress is in a continuous session for 30 days. There is a recess of the Congress in August, which leaves less than 40 days before the Congress adjourns on September 26, 2008.The 123 Agreement cannot come for passage until the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group okay the deal. How long will that take? It may come up for passage by IAEA in the coming three weeks, but indications are that the NSG may not convene on the issue till September. If so, there is no option but to wait for the post-Bush Administration to assume office. What have the Democrats in mind about the deal?More importantly, when will India stand up for its own rights? That is the prime issue. What is happening in India right now has so far nothing to do with this serious debate.-- The writer, a senior journalist, is doing his PhD at Bournemouth University, UK.
Home ePaper
City Nation Edit Op-Ed Business The Big Story World VivaCity Avenues Sports Columnists Forecast Editor's Mail
STATE EDITIONS Bhopal Bhubaneswar Ranchi Kochi Lucknow Chandigarh Dehradun
SUNDAY PIONEER Agenda Foray
OPED Tuesday, July 15, 2008 Email Print
We need nuclear tests
Venkata Vemuri
When will India stand up for its own rights? The ongoing debate on the India-US nuclear deal skirts long-term issues linked to India's nuclear deterrence. It's facetious to describe the deal, as it exists, as good for India -- it is exactly the oppositeThe level of political debate in India on the nuclear deal with the US is as abysmal as the surreptitious attempt by the Indian bureaucracy to push it through on the ground that it is a matter of 'national pride'. Neither the Left, nor the Opposition, and certainly not the Manmohan Singh Government, has taken the people of India into confidence on the real issues that are of concern.These issues are crucial for India's long-term foreign and nuclear policies. We should be more concerned with India's strategic role vis-?-vis a futuristic -- but possible -- stand-off between China and the US, rather than the short-term gains in terms of nuclear energy or the one-upmanship game with Pakistan. India is already capable of tackling the last two.Let us proceed step by step. What did we achieve after the 1998 nuclear tests? It is an unspoken truth that the tests failed to validate some of India's warhead designs. Couple this with the fact that India is yet to possess comprehensive missile technology which can deliver warheads up to China, not merely Pakistan. Only when we have such a combination can we be confident that India has a credible nuclear deterrent. How do we reach that stage? By conducting more nuclear tests while continuing to make progress with the missile systems.Is India in a position to conduct more nuclear tests? India has offered a voluntary moratorium on further nuclear testing. If the nuclear deal comes through, the moratorium will no longer be voluntary, but legally binding on us. The proposed amendment to the US law that will make the nuclear deal official is that the American President will, from time to time, certify that India has not tested a nuclear device. Which means, if India conducts a test in the future, the deal becomes void.So, without a nuclear test, any thought of becoming a nuclear power or having a credible nuclear deterrent is a pipe dream.Then comes the issue related to availability of fissionable material for nuclear weaponisation. India has agreed, under the draft agreement of the deal, to identify and separate civil and military nuclear programmes. India has also agreed to place the civil facilities under IAEA safeguards. There are two issues here. First, the deal will not overnight give India the status of a nuclear weapons state. Far from it. It will be recognised as a non-nuclear weapons state which is not a signatory to the NPT. To that extent, India will be better off than Pakistan. That is not what India will be satisfied with, but has no option but to accept it. Second, once the civil facilities are under IAEA safeguards, there will be restrictions on the fissionable material for use in India's military facilities. India's nuclear doctrine depends on the availability of this material. For, the number of nuclear warheads India wishes to have to achieve the critical state of deterrence is determined by, first of all, India's threat perception and next, the material available for weaponisation. According to India's nuclear doctrine as it stands today, the limit of critical deterrence depends on its threat perception. Which means India can increase its nuclear stockpile if the threat perception increases. Such a doctrine allows India the advantage of not having to tie itself to a certain number of warheads. However, the IAEA safeguards will mean, at least theoretically, a weakened deterrence if India's adversaries increase their stockpiles. For, in such a situation, increasing India's own stockpile will depend on how much un-safeguarded material is available to it.According to an AP report on the draft of the safeguards agreement, a "key clause appears to call into question the effectiveness of any IAEA effort to ensure India's civilian nuclear activities do not aid its military's atomic weapons programme". The draft agreement in the preamble talks of India taking "corrective measures" to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civil nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of supplies. Possibly the only 'corrective measure' is India withdrawing some of the safeguarded civil facilities from the IAEA list so that the fissionable material can be used for military purposes. Having said that, the safeguards issue is not as serious as the moratorium on testing. It is well known that India has the capability to develop its own nuclear plants. Moreover, despite the agreement it will remain India's right to classify future nuclear plants as civil or military, thus giving the country an escape valve.What the entire debate on the deal boils down to, is this: Does India feel it requires a credible nuclear deterrent against China? If so, it has to clearly state its position before the current form of the deal is signed. Otherwise, its dream of having a credible deterrent and being a major nuclear power is washed out. Yes, India needs a nuclear deterrent against China insofar as its future geo-political stakes are concerned. Then why is the UPA Government shying away from stating this to the US? One point that goes in India's favour -- and a very vital one at that -- is that the US cannot face a standoff with China without the support of India. For facing China, both need each other. It is also true that the US excursions into Asia have a black and bleak record of failure. Vietnam, for example. In the future, any standoff with China can only be on the issue of Taiwan. And the odds of the US going it alone, without India's aid, are high. Let us just assume that the current deal actually goes through. Theoretically it is possible that the US itself may go in for nuclear testing in the future, thus allowing India to do so too. How is that possible? The current deal has a clause which says that India will assume responsibilities and reap the same benefits as accruing to states with advanced nuclear technology like the US. The flip side, however, is what if the US does not undertake tests in future? It is a big if.The nuclear deal by itself does not much harm Indian interests as long as India retains the right to conduct nuclear tests in the future. Indian bureaucrats, like the messy mice that they are, are already indulging in vacuous arguments that India's moratorium on tests is unilateral and, therefore, what is a unilateral proposition cannot be bound by an agreement. The why not get this included in the piece of paper?India is at present in a political turmoil over the deal. It may all come to a naught if the deal is not passed in the current session of the US Congress. The basic legal paper of the deal, called the Hyde Act, 2006, has a provision that the final agreement between the US and India can be taken up by the Congress for passage only if the Congress is in a continuous session for 30 days. There is a recess of the Congress in August, which leaves less than 40 days before the Congress adjourns on September 26, 2008.The 123 Agreement cannot come for passage until the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group okay the deal. How long will that take? It may come up for passage by IAEA in the coming three weeks, but indications are that the NSG may not convene on the issue till September. If so, there is no option but to wait for the post-Bush Administration to assume office. What have the Democrats in mind about the deal?More importantly, when will India stand up for its own rights? That is the prime issue. What is happening in India right now has so far nothing to do with this serious debate.-- The writer, a senior journalist, is doing his PhD at Bournemouth University, UK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)