| |
US hegemony under a cloud
Regional realities changing in West Asia
by Harsh V. Pant
In a first of its kind the United Nations (UN) is getting ready to set up a chemical weapons mission with about 100 technical specialists, administrators and security officers to destroy Syria's nerve agent programme. This plan has been outlined by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and will require approval by the Security Council in order to implement an agreement on Syria's chemical weapons that was brokered by the United States and Russia. A UN advance team of 35 is already in Damascus to begin dismantling Syria's chemical weapons programme, a task for which the UN faces enormous security challenges. Just hours before the advance team arrived in Damascus, two mortars shells landed near their hotel underscoring the precarious nature of the task they have been asked to accomplish in Syria's dangerous and volatile environment. Despite taking on this challenge, the UN Secretary General has conceded that the campaign to contain one of the world's deadliest weapons programmes would not end the suffering in the country, where more than 100,000 people have died since 2011, the majority killed by conventional weapons used by the regime led by President Bashar al-Assad. There are already concerns that the list of chemical weapons supplied by the Assad government is far from complete and there are allegations that Syria has been moving around its chemical weapons stores even though the US Secretary of State had demanded a full and comprehensive accounting in a week's time. There have been complaints that this diplomatic process has tied the US hands and will entangle it in months of negotiations that are likely to yield little, something which suits Assad and Russia. But the deal has been enough to give US President Barack Obama a face-saving measure. That Obama has had no policy on Syria was evident from his flip-flops as the crisis came to a point of no return. For more than two years he had insisted that Assad must go, but took few steps to hasten that departure. During this time millions of people have been displaced from their homes, al-Qaida has found a safe haven in the country and violence has spread to neighbouring Lebanon and Iraq, with Israel, Jordan and Turkey also at risk. There has been an extraordinary failure of leadership by the US President. While deciding on intervention in a fateful West Asian war, the US President chose a minimalist option which was likely to fail. Days after being on the verge of sending U.S. missiles into Syria to punish Assad for using chemical weapons, Obama decided to go to the Congress to authorise this mission in advance. As it started to become clear that Congress would not give its approval for an attack on Syria, Obama started to have a rethink. Finally, the President was offered a lifeline by the very regime he was planning to attack, when Assad agreed to a Russian plan to surrender chemical weapons. As a result, Obama then decided to pursue diplomatic efforts to force the Syrian President to turn over control of his chemical weapons to an international body, and eventually to see them destroyed. Failing that, he could then go back to Congress with a stronger case to make that he has exhausted peaceful efforts and that only military action is the only course left to deter the Syrians from using those weapons again. It has been a muddle all around for Washington. As a result of Obama's Syria policy, the American position as the region's predominant power has come under threat with regional players weighing their options and other powers asserting themselves in ways that are unprecedented. Saudi Arabia remains disturbed by the US-Russian diplomatic initiative on Syria's chemical weapons and has called for increasing support to the Syrian opposition. Riyadh suspects that the Syrian regime would take advantage of the initiative to change the balance of power in the ground in its favour. The possible US-Iran rapprochement has also increased anxiety in the Arab Gulf states. Turkey has signed a $4 billion deal for a FD-2000 missile defence system from China Precision Machinery Import and Export Corp, a company that is under US sanctions for dealings with Iran, North Korea and Syria. Though Ankara has signalled that it might back away from the deal after strong opposition was expressed by Washington and NATO, it underlines a changing reality in West Asia in so far as the emergence of new powers such as Russia and China is concerned. The regional configuration is changing rapidly in West Asian as the US forces have left Iraq and the fall of some of the major US allies in the Arab Spring uprisings. At the same time, Russia has asserted its so far limited regional presence by standing steadfastly with its only remaining Arab ally. The passing of the Security Council resolution requiring Syria to surrender its chemical weapons arsenal was a huge achievement for Russia. Moscow is also trying to reach out to states like Iraq and Egypt to win new friends in the region. The new Egyptian government has reached out to Moscow already and the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been to Russia twice over the last year in order to sign a $4billion defence pact. The Arab states remain deeply suspicious of Russian motives and view with concern Russian maneuverings to entrench itself at the expense of the US. The US interest in West Asia is declining as domestic economic and political uncertainties make it look more and more inwards. Moreover, the US energy profile is changing rapidly. The shale oil and gas boom is transforming energy markets with the US likely to emerge as the world's biggest combined oil and gas producer this year. American imports of natural gas and crude oil have fallen 32 per cent and 15 per cent since 2008 and last year the US tapped more natural gas than Russia for the first time in three decades. These trends are re-shaping the regional order in West Asia and New Delhi will have to respond proactively to preserve and enhance its own interests in a strategically critical region.
 |
| |
The day after
by Navjyot Dhindsa
It had been a long night. I had gone to sleep at 3 in the morning. The sound of the door bell woke me up at 6 am. I was taken aback: what, no 40 kg hulk sitting on my chest, licking and urging me to get up.As my feet touched the floor, my slippers lay where I had removed them. I didn't have to look for them under the bed. There was no one who could have kicked them there. I opened my bedroom door to go to the main door. No one raced me to the door. It was the milkman. I took the milk and went to the kitchen to make myself a cup of tea. But before that I must give someone his morning treat. Where was he? I switched on the computer and started chatting with my husband on Skype. The door bell rang again. I got up easily, no one lay at my feet and again went alone to the main door. It was the maid. She followed me into the house. Wasn't she supposed to take him out for his morning walk while I boiled some eggs for his morning meal. No, he wasn't there. I returned to the computer with a heavy heart. It was time for breakfast. I wondered if he had taken his meal or do I have to feed him with my hand, one morsel at a time. I had no appetite. I sat on my bed with tears running down my cheeks. It was time for lunch. I could not swallow the food. There was a knot in the throat. He was not there to demand his share. When I cut some mangoes, I did not hear him paw at the door to be let into the dining room. Was it my imagination or was he really not there. The maid left. I sat down to look at a lesson I was to deliver in the afternoon. I could hardly concentrate. I got up and ironed my clothes. As I lay my clothes on the bed, I knew no one will sit on and crush them. It was 4 pm. Why didn't the maid come on time? She knows that he is to go for his evening walk before I left for work. But where was he? As the maid came, I left for work. Everyone asked me if I was well. I was told I looked a mess. I wondered if they would understand if I told them the truth. The truth was that Snoopy wasn't coming back. I had lost him to a sudden and short illness. I had shouted at his lifeless body to get up and I wanted to hold him in my arms forever. He was no longer there to give me his unconditional love. It seemed that I would never recover from this. No, not everyone could understand. I returned home at my usual time. I did not have the heart to ring the bell as I knew he wasn't going to come to greet me. I went to the garden to meet him where I had buried him the previous night, before mustering strength to enter the
house.
|
| |
Banning the ban
In a country where sensibilities are mercurial and easily irked, especially by the most popular medium of cinema, the Mudgal panel’s pathbreaking recommendations may not usher in overnight change but can certainly put the brakes on arbitrary bans on films.
Nonika Singh
BAN.... how India loves this three-letter word. Be it as individuals or communities we are only too eager to let this axe drop on other's (read filmmaker's) feet at the slightest provocation. Film after film has been mired in controversy often for the slimmest of reasons. Controversies are born, die only to be replaced by a fresh one. Communities have gone to courts and state governments have buckled under pressure and banned films under the garb of threat to law and order. Be it Kamal Haasan's Vishwaroopam, Shoojit Sircar's Madras Cafe or closer home Punjabi film Sadda Haq... the release of the films have been stalled time and again. All this could, however, change in near future. The Mudgal committee, set up in February this year after the government felt the need to update The Cinematograph Act, 1952, has come up with a report. Among other things the panel headed by Justice Mukul Mudgal, retired Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, has sought to curb the use of law and order as a plea to ban films. Further it has recommended that the Cinematograph Act should be considered paramount and has suggested amendments to the Act, strengthening its powers and giving it teeth so that it can handle cases other than that of filmmakers which is what it is entitled to do right now. Of course, it doesn't take away people's right to dissent, only states if a state government or an individual or institution have objections, they can approach FCAT (Film Certification Appellate Tribunal) instead of courts of law. Indeed, to say that new rules to govern cinema are much needed is stating the obvious. In a way the panel has only echoed the sentiments of a large majority of filmmakers. This is what they have been saying all along. Once the censor board in all its wisdom has cleared the film, people have no business to hold producers to ransom, hold up the release and need to direct their complaints to the board. Needless to say, in a country of billion plus, sensibilities are as variable as mercurial and easily irked. Hitting the road and raising decibel levels seems the quickest solution to all burning problems and concerns. Protests and ban are considered a democratic expression, often more democratic and sacrosanct than the right to freedom of expression of artists. What has been more intriguing is that often communities decide to protest even before watching the film. At times films like Deepa Mehta's Water that looked at the plight of Vrindavan widows run into rough weather at the shooting stage itself. And pre-release the most critical stage for a film, the criticism gains momentum and 'ban this film' refrain gathers steam. No wonder Madras Cafe faced the ire of Tamils who decided for themselves that the film portrayed the Tamil Elam cause in a bad light. Actually the film was all along a balanced perspective of events that led to Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. Similarly Sadda Haq had the Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal defending the ban and declaring, "Maintaining law and order is our utmost priority, and we will not allow an act that threatens hard-earned peace." That the film was later released and did not as much as create a ripple let alone fissures, however, is an altogether different matter. Yet it would be fair to grant that when fact marries fiction and films hover on sensitive and volatile subjects such as terrorism, hackles can be easily raised. But often pure fiction and at times innocuous titles like Biloo Barber too can sound offensive to the easily offended tribe. Besides, in a pluralistic society people invariably take umbrage to the manner in which a community is represented. Son of Sardar, a typical Bollywood pot-boiler, faced the flak of the Sikhs who took strong objection to the portrayal of the lead character, particularly some dialogues and the tattoo of Lord Shiva on his chest. Similarly, Vishwaroopam, the hullabaloo over which led to the formation of the panel, offended sections of Muslim community. The conflagration in both films was resolved after both Haasan and Devgn agreed to remove the objectionable scenes. While a compromise is invariably struck between the makers and those demanding a ban, the makers do stand to lose money in the ensuing imbroglio. Besides, this only emboldens others and the Damocles' sword shows no signs of moving away from the makers' heads. This despite the fact that way back in its judgment in S. Rangarajan vs Jagjivan Ram involving the film Ore Oru Gramathile in 1989, the Supreme Court had stated, "Freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence." More recently in case of film Aarkshan it once again reiterated that once a film was certified for viewing, the fig leaf of law and order could not be allowed to stand in the way. Yet the tribe of protestors couldn't care less and take offence where none is intended. Indeed, it's no one's case that artists are not responsible for how they tell their stories. Cultural, religious and gender differences have to be respected, not exploited. Fortunately, cinema, a collaborative effort and not an individual expression, has enough checks and balances in place. Moreover, no maker stirs up a controversy deliberately. Those who believe producers are looking for free publicity are way off the mark. Controversy rarely helps the cause of the film and makes bad business sense. Actually if viewers were to scream and hurtle the word ban every time an artist thinks out of the box, creativity would soon be dead. In this context and in the interest of the most popular medium of entertainment in India on whose back rides crores of rupees, undeniably the panel's suggestions are well-meaning. How many of these, including the one that calls for more suitable men and women to chair the seats as members of the censor board, will be heeded to remains to be seen. Will the proposed amendments finally put an end to the producers' nightmare.... clearly the last word has not been said. Not by the Cabinet who will finally endorse the model Cinematograph Bill. Nor by the audiences whose chorus cry 'ban this film' is not likely to drown down easily. But if the government is as earnest as it was in setting up of the panel and lends its ears to the valuable recommendations, at least the arbitrariness of the ban could be tackled. When that would happen.... is yet another big question.
Act now The Cinematograph Act 1952 came into force all over India except in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Some of the recommendations put forward by the Justice Mudgal panel if implemented could change the face of the Act. What the panel says:  The selection to the advisory panels of the Central Board of Film Certification should be more professional. The members should have adequate knowledge of the intricacies of cinema.
Increase the mandate of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal to hear cases regarding an objection to any particular film. More categories for the classification of films and to bring age-specific divisions. In cases where a state uses law and order as a reason to ban a film, ascendency must be given to the powers of the Cinematograph Act.
Hall of controversyVishwaroopam that led to the formation of the Mudgal panel isn't the first film that stirred a hornet's nest. Films have time and again been held up not only due to public pressure but other factors at play including strong political overtones. In 1959, Neel Akasher Neechey was banned for two months for overt political overtones as it showed the troubles faced by an immigrant Chinese wage laborer in 1930s. Nine Hours to Rama was banned for depicting the psychological motivations of Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi. Much acclaimed Garam Hawa's release was held up by the censors for eight months. Gulzars' Aandhi was banned during Emergency by Indira Gandhi due to the uncanny resemblance with her and subsequently released in 1977. Political spoof Kissa Kursi Ka too faced the Congress government's ire as it lampooned the Emergency. The movie was later remade with a different cast. Pati Parmeshwar was denied a rating by the Censor for depicting a woman in "ignoble servility" of her husband. Later, Bombay High Court allowed its release. Much before the furore over Madras Café yet another film Kuttrapathirikai dealt with Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. Though it was completed in 1993, it was not released until 2007. Bandit Queen was banned temporarily by the Delhi High Court after Phoolan Devi, challenged its authenticity. Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love was on the line of fire due to overt sexual content and suffered a two minute cut of nudity. Fire was attacked by Hindu fundamentalists for depicting a lesbian relationship. The film was sent back to the Censor Board and later released uncut. Paanch was banned for glorifying drugs, sex and violence, later certified with cuts. Black Friday on the 1993 Bombay bombings was blocked until the verdict of the lawsuit by the Bombay High Court on the petition of the under-trials. The film was originally set to be released in India in 2005 but finally saw the light of the day in 2007. The Pink Mirror was denied a rating for its strong homosexual content.
Hollywood cutInterestingly some Hollywood movies too have created a storm in India. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was banned temporarily for its "negative" depiction of Indians. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was banned for its adult scenes of rape and torture. The Central Board of Film Certification demanded that these scenes be cut, which the director David Fincher refused to do.
The release of many a movie like (clockwise from top) Madras Cafe, Sadda Haq and Vishwaroopam has been stalled due to public pressure |
|
