Anti-Defection Law and the Curse of Coalition Politics

By Adil Rasheed

April 4, 2014

For several years now, the incubus of ‘policy paralysis’ and ‘governance deficit’ has plagued the Indian body politic. 

In Pythagorean terms, the recurring non-terminating factors of irrational political numbers and their strangest of configurations have produced perpetually hung parliaments. It seems to be a Catch 22 situation that oscillates from one disjoint Lok Sabha to another fractured mandate and in the process drains the country of its democratic lifeblood.

Thus, coalition politics with its oversised governments and unaccountable excesses has become the norm ever since India enacted the unprecedented Anti-Defection law in 1985, which disqualifies individual members of parliament to defect from their political parties.  Ostensibly, the law was meant to prevent unseemly scenes of ‘floor-crossing’ and ‘horse-trading,’ but in the process has led to the ossification, if not the hegemony of minor political parties over important matters of governance.

Thus we find bloated coalitions (like the UPA or NDA) unable to pass crucial pieces of legislation or provide effective governance because smaller political parties often blackmail or put narrow, parochial aims ahead of the larger interest of the nation. Individual MPs are forced to adhere to the party whip and are denied the independence to act as responsible legislators. Horse-trading and ‘unparliamentary ‘ practices have all but increased and minor parties often get their pound of flesh in lieu of supporting the slender majority of a political bloc.

It is important to note that the constitution never used the word political party, until the time the Anti-Defection law was introduced as the 52nd Amendment of the 10th Schedule in the Indian Constitution. Not surprisingly, no party has ever complained against the law as it provides every one of them control over the elected legislators.

It would be very difficult for India to have a national party that is able to garner even a simple majority in parliament. Given the problems this situation entails, one should revert to the wisdom of the founders of the constitution and accord more respect to the independence of individual members of parliament.  The winner-takes-all formula may help the biggest party gain the majority, which the country desperately needs for good governance. Such a scenario would be less problematic than the queer combinations that political parties cobble up in the absence of a clear mandate.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=/data/editorial/2014/April/editorial_April8.xml&section=editorial

The Threat of Derivatives to the Global Financial System

By Adil Rasheed

13 Jan 2010

In the last two decades, a new and innovative form of trading in complex financial instruments called ‘derivatives’ has caught the fancy of investors around the world. Considered by many economists as extraordinarily useful in providing excess liquidity and stability to the markets, these complex products of financial speculation have ballooned into a $700 trillion global market, which is at least ten times the size of the global GDP.

However, a growing number of economists and investors have started calling the trade in derivatives as the principal cause of the current global financial meltdown, and regard the US subprime mortgage crisis as merely the trigger for dangerous financial instruments—like Collaterized Debt Obligations (CDO) and Credit Default Swaps (CDS)—to unleash an incipient disaster. They aver that the unraveling of banks and financial institutions like Lehman Brothers, American International Group (AIG) and Citigroup that led to the current global financial crisis was a result of the enormous ‘toxic assets’ produced by the derivatives trade.

Even the supporters of these innovative financial instruments now concede that derivatives could work as a double-edged sword, which if unregulated and misused could cause major systemic flaws. Thus, many prominent global economists, investors and politicians have started expressing the fear that unregulated derivatives trade could still become the bane of the global financial system. Nobel economics laureates Joseph Stiglitz, George Akerlof and Myrol Scholes, and renowned investors like George Soros and Marc Faber have called for outlawing at least some of the most complex derivatives like Credit Default Swaps (CDS). Legendary entrepreneur and investor Warren Buffett has gone so far as to call derivatives “financial weapons of mass destruction.”

Despite the enormity of the problem, few understand the complexities involving derivatives or are able to wade through the soup of their abbreviated names like CDOs, CDSs etc. In plain terms, derivatives are financial instruments that do not hold any intrinsic worth but derive their value from an underlying asset, index, event, value or condition. These products are used to speculate or hedge individuals or businesses from perceived risks. Thus, instead of trading or exchanging the underlying asset itself, derivative traders enter into an agreement to exchange cash or other assets over time based on an underlying asset. In other words, derivatives are not assets in themselves, but financial deals made about assets, many of which are simply bets.

Derivatives are generally categorized by the relationship between the underlying and the derivative (for example forward, exchange or swap), the type of underlying asset like currencies, interest rates, shares, debt, property etc. and the market in which they trade (e.g. exchange-traded or over-the-counter derivatives).

These innovative products are so new and complex that their benefits and dangers have not yet been fully tested, explored or comprehended. Often, it takes advanced mathematics to clearly understand how they work. This complexity creates an aura of mystery about derivatives, and there is always an inherent danger of miscalculation. Any undetected error could potentially cause systemic risks. This flies in the face of the maxim circulated in the media today that one should not invest in what one does not understand.

There are also many other risks and dangers associated with derivatives trade. First, derivatives do not require the actual ownership of the underlying asset, and the level of bets often outstrips the level of underlying assets. Thus, even a small move in the value of the underlying asset causes a huge difference in the value of the financial instrument and causes huge anomalies for various financial institutions.

Second, derivatives are usually highly leveraged, as hedge funds and banks which trade in them make extensive use of borrowed money to increase their returns. Thus, investors who make huge amounts of money in the event of an upturn also sustain massive losses even in a marginal downtick, particularly on borrowed money which has a cumulative impact on the financial system in a variety of ways.

There have been many instances of massive losses in derivative markets, such as the crisis that hit AIG, which was overcome only after $85 billion of bailout money was provided by the US government, the loss of $7.2 billion by Societe Generale in January 2008 because of the futures contracts related crises, the $6.4 billion loss in the failed fund Amarnath Advisors in September 2006, the loss of $4.6 billion in the failed fund Long-Term Capital Management in 1998 etc.

Again, majority of derivatives trade is unregulated and takes place between two parties, without going through an exchange or other intermediary. These Over-the Counter (OTC) derivatives, which have an estimated outstanding notional amount of $684 trillion (according to Bank of International Settlements figure of June 2008), often involve high-risk products like swaps, forward rate agreements and exotic options and are free of any regulation as regards disclosure of information between parties. Estimates of OTC amounts of derivatives are difficult because these trades often occur in private. Moreover, the OTC market is made up of big banks and hedge funds, which are too vulnerable and too big to fail for the health of the financial system.

Many economists of the Austrian school deride the derivative market as a “casino” and call it a financial innovation of the Greenspan era that helped “hide the bankruptcy of the financial system following the 1987 stock market crash.” It is alleged that this virtual market was created to allow big banks and speculators to bet on movements of currencies, bonds, stocks and indices associated with them and thereby revive the economy. However, following the bust in the derivatives bubble in 2008, central banks have been allegedly printing money to pay for the “fictitious values and profits” of these derivatives, which in turn is building a hyper-inflationary bomb that has the potential of destabilizing the global financial system once more.

The above claims appear exaggerated, still the US Congress and the Obama administration has started introducing legislation and measures to regulate the unfettered excesses of derivatives trade. However, many in the US Congress are skeptical about the effectiveness of proposed regulations. The chairman of the newly formed Economic Recovery Advisory Board under President Obama and former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker is himself a major critic of these products of financial engineering. In a recent interview he said: “I hear about these wonderful innovations in the financial markets, and they sure as hell need a lot of innovation. I can tell you of two—credit-default swaps and collateralized debt obligations—which took us right to the brink of disaster.” With a tinge of sarcasm he later added that for him the best financial innovation in recent decades has been the ATM machine.

http://www.ecssr.ac.ae/ECSSR/print/ft.jsp?lang=en&ftId=/FeatureTopic/ECSSR/FeatureTopic_1205.xml

Algeria Blasts: France High on the Terror Hit List

Adil Rasheed

13 Jan, 2007

It came as a bolt from the blue. A double car bomb struck two high-security locations in Algiers, shattering the din of the late morning rush hour on December 11, 2007. One of the attacks tore the front of the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) building in Hydra, an uptown residential locality where other UN buildings and several ministries and foreign embassies are situated. The other explosion targeted the constitutional court, also in a well-guarded area and the site of other important state buildings.

The government put the number of dead at 26. However, press reports suggested the fatality

figure could be higher than 67, and put the number of injured at 177. The United Nations disclosed that at least 11 of its staff had been killed and several others were still missing. The near-simultaneous blasts were suggestive of Al-Qaeda's involvement; a suspicion that was later confirmed when the BQMI (Al-Qaeda¿s Branch in the Islamic Maghreb) took responsibility for the attack on its website.

To many North African commentators, the destruction has raised the fear of a return to civil war that had ravaged Algeria in the 1990s. Others have suspected an Al-Qaeda plan to subsume Algeria's internal conflict into its war on the West. In this respect, some analysts point out at Al-Qaeda's perverse symbolism in selecting the date for the attack. The date "12/11" is not only an echo to Al-Qaeda's other attacks (the 9/11 strikes on the US and the 3/11 blasts in Madrid), but also plays on an important day in Algerian history bearing the same date.

December 11, 1960 is considered a turning point in the Algerian war for independence from their former colonial ruler, France. It is said that massive pro-independence protests had marked a visit that day by France's then-president, Gen. Charles de Gaulle. Since then, Algerians have marked the anniversary of the event to remember the cruelty unleashed by French forces against young Algerian demonstrators. Curiously, the government building struck on Tuesday is located on a street named after the date: December 11, 1960, Boulevard.

To many observers, however, Al-Qaeda¿s patent barbarity affords little room for symbolic subtleties. This horrible attack, they say, was merely an attempt to counter the several recent setbacks suffered by the terrorist network across the globe. Still, certain political analysts contend that the BQMI has sought to exploit a growing unease among certain sections of the Algerian society over the Bouteflika government's present cooperation with France. The terrorists seem to be sending out a message to the disgruntled elements in the Algerian society, that somehow the administration is betraying the glorious freedom fighters of the national revolution. It is to be noted here that French President Nicholas Sarkozy recently visited Algeria and spoke of forming, in league with Algeria, an axis of Mediterranean Union.

This is an unsettling development for Al-Qaeda in northern Africa, for it could stymie its resurgence in this part of the world. In fact, any such union could foil BQMI¿s current efforts at unifying radical religious groups in Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. The organization has also been trying to cast its net wide into Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, and Eritrea.

Moreover, Al-Qaeda aspires to use BQMI for extending its reach into Europe as well, especially in France. With growing antipathy toward the perceived hawkish attitude of the new French President on Middle East issues, many disgruntled ethnic Algerian elements in France would feel the pull of Al-Qaeda, now that it has aligned itself to an indigenously powerful Algerian terror outfit.

In fact, Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahari has repeatedly threatened Europe, particularly France, in recent times. French President Nicolas Sarkozy's closer ties with the US and pro-Israel positions seem to have pushed France high on Al-Qaeda's hit list. Since his taking office, analysts say, radical websites have harped on Sarkozy's Jewish ancestry and his alleged links with the "Jewish lobby," as justification for terrorist strikes against France.

In order to better understand Al-Qaeda's recent resurgence in northern Africa it would be important to note its link-up with the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, known by its French acronym GSPC, in September 2006. The merger led to the renaming of the terror organization, now known as the "Al-Qaeda Branch in the Islamic Maghreb." For Al-Qaeda, this new alliance has been a shot-in-the-arm. After losing its base in Afghanistan after November 2001, and having recently suffered major reversals in Iraq (with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki recently declaring his government's victory against terrorism in the country), the terror syndicate has clearly found a new ally in northern African and with it a new lease of life for its global terror campaign.

Before it had merged with Al-Qaeda, the GSPC had vowed to avoid senseless violence and spare civilians as much as possible. However, since its alliance with Al-Qaeda, the organization seems to have changed its modus operandi. Terror experts point out that multiple and simultaneous attacks have become more common since its alliance with the international terror network. The attacks now target not only foreign interests, but also seek to maximize the number of civilian casualties.

Moreover, this alliance has increased the level of terrorist violence in Algeria, and the year 2007 has clearly been one of the most violent for the country since its decade-long civil war that ended five years ago. In addition to sporadic killings and blasts throughout, some major terrorist operations grabbed international attention this year. In April, coordinated strikes against government offices in Algiers and a police station left 33 people dead. Again, two explosions in the month of September claimed up to 50 lives.

However, by the targeting the UN building and the Algerian courts on December 11, Al-Qaeda has raised the terror alarm to a new level. The attacks targeted Algerian and international organizations and sent a message that the country is becoming the new hotbed for international terrorism. Therefore, the twin blasts may have far greater significance than just the horrific destruction and loss of life suffered by the Algerian capital on that Tuesday morning. The shockwaves produced by these blasts would have been acutely felt across the Mediterranean.

http://www.ecssr.com/ECSSR/appmanager/portal/ecssr?_nfls=false&_nfpb=true&lang=en&_pageLabel=featuredTopicsPage&_event=viewFeaturedTopic&ftId=/FeatureTopic/Adil_Rasheed/FeatureTopic_0875.xml

US, UK Plan to Build New Nuclear Weapons

By Adil Rasheed
October 7, 2007

Just as the international community is trying to check the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, the present US and UK governments are silently planning to build a new "family of modern nuclear weapons," in utter disregard of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Over the last seven years of the Bush administration, US nuclear policy seems to have changed from one of grudging compliance of its nuclear weapons control and non-proliferation commitments to a more aggressive, if not defiant, approach.

For one, the Bush Administration has backtracked on many of its non-proliferation commitments, and has even claimed that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) can only function if it allows the nuclear powers to maintain their nuclear weapons. The US has also not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), backed nuclear programs of non-NPT nuclear states (like Israel and India), launched multi-billion dollar programs to do research on fusion-based and space-based nuclear weapons, and rejected the verification mechanisms of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

The Bush administration has also maintained the option of first-use against non-nuclear states and has initiated the process of developing new nuclear weapons under the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, on the grounds of reducing its "aging" nuclear stockpile.

Experts point out that as early as 2001; the US Nuclear Policy Statement looked upon nuclear weapons, not just as a means of deterrence but as part of US war-fighting strategy. In pursuance of this approach, the Bush administration has already initiated new strategic nuclear delivery systems including both missiles and bombers, a new Modern Pit Facility with the capacity to manufacture between 250 and 900 nuclear components annually.

The first practical step toward a major revision of US nuclear policy came in May 2003, when the US Senate scrapped the Spratt-Furse law of 1994. This provision had barred research and development into the making of the so-called "mini-nukes," so that nuclear weapons are not used indiscriminately in wars. After the annulment of the Spratt-Furse law, the Bush administration sought to launch the Advanced Concepts Initiative (ACI) and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).

The ACI program was aimed at designing new and modified warheads, having lower yields, specific radiation outputs, and other blast effects. The RNEP sought to increase the penetration of nuclear weapons deep into the ground before detonating. This was aimed at increasing the ability of "bunker-busting" weapons in destroying buried targets. The administration also sought funds for reducing the maximum time between a presidential order to conduct a nuclear test and the test itself to 18 months, shortening the earlier duration of 24 to 36 months. Congress passed these provisions and they became law by the end of 2003. However, in 2004, US Congress unexpectedly decided to curtail funding for all these initiatives, and wiped out the ACI and RNEP budgets. However, the Jane's Information Group suspects that RNEP project, though cancelled, may yet continue under a different name.

Undeterred by these setbacks at the US legislative level, the Bush administration approved a plan in October 2006 to completely revamp all US nuclear weapons facilities by 2030 (under the name "Complex 2030"), consolidate weapons-grade plutonium stocks, and build a new stockpile of around re-designed 1,700 to 2,200 nuclear warheads under the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. The RRWs are meant to gradually replace the existing 6,600 warheads and are planned to have a longevity till the end of this century. The cost of this "Complex 2030" plan has been estimated at about US$ 100-$150 billion.

The centerpiece of Complex 2030 is the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. Although the types of warheads to be built under the RRW program remain unclear, its aim is to design new nuclear weapons that are "highly reliable, easy, and safe to manufacture, monitor, and test." It is claimed that the program would help in rapidly adapting, repairing, or modifying existing weapons and in developing new weapons, according to changing needs of the military.

It is noteworthy that the United States has not developed a new nuclear weapon since 1988. However, on March 2, 2007, the US Department of Energy selected a new design for the first nuclear weapon to be produced after the Cold War under the RRW program. Supporters of the RRW program have raised doubts concerning the safety, security, and reliability of the "aging" US nuclear weapons stockpile, which under the "Stockpile Stewardship" program are inspected and certified annually.

Critics of the RRW program contend that one does not need to develop new nuclear weapons to carryout the promised cut down in US nuclear stockpile. This, the claim, is against the letter and spirit of the disarmament agreements. As for the argument on the reliability of the aging nukes, a leaked report of a secret federal panel "codenamed Jason" is said to have exposed this claim as false. As revealed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Jason found that the existing US nuclear stockpile was in good condition and still had a life of another century or more. Therefore, while the official version is that the RRWs are only intended to replace existing ¿aging¿ warheads, critics say they are new generation weapons to keep the US ahead in global nuclear dominance.

They contend that the RRW program is contrary to the provision of "general and complete disarmament" of atomic weapons sought by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which the US has signed. Opponents of the RRW program also worry that that this program has the potential of damaging US national security, and that it would disrupt the global cooperation in nonproliferation that is vital to diplomacy with emerging nuclear powers such as Iran and North Korea. Moreover, the development of new designs, especially a hybrid design, may necessitate the testing of new warheads at some point in the future. A US explosive test would completely shatter the international moratorium and open the floodgates to tests by other states.

Fortunately, this year the US House of Representatives stripped away money for the RRW program from the Energy Department's upcoming budget, while the Senate agreed to only partially fund the program. However, a final budget has yet to be approved in Congress.

Meanwhile, Britain's Labor government has also accompanied the US in reactivating its nuclear weapons program. In December 2006, a White Paper spoke of plans to repair and renew Britain's nuclear arsenal, which mainly comprises the submarine-based Trident missiles. Then in March 2007, the British government won support for plans to renew its nuclear submarine system in the House of Commons. It has been reported that the government would spend between £15bn and £20bn on new submarines to carry the Trident missiles. The fleet will take an estimated 17 years to develop and build, and will last until 2050.

Around the same time, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported that the Trident nuclear weapons are being secretly upgraded to increase their accuracy and ability to attack a wider range of targets. It claimed that the British Ministry of Defense had admitted that a new firing device, called the Arming, Fusing and Firing (AF&F) system, developed by the US is to be installed in Britain's nuclear weapons system by scientists at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire. The disclosure angered anti-nuclear campaigners, who called the AF&F an offensive weapon, and not a defensive deterrent.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the IAEA chief Mohammad El-Baradei, has been highly critical of the British push for more nuclear weapons. This was clear in his speech given at the London School of Economics, where he stated, "Britain cannot expect other countries to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons if it upgrades Trident. Other countries are told nuclear weapons are counter-productive because they do not protect your security. But, when they look to the big boys, what do they see?" he asked. "They see increasing reliance on nuclear weapons for security. They also see weapons being continually modernized."

Clearly, if the United States and Britain keep re-arming themselves with new nuclear weapons, it would rob them of the legitimacy to protest and take action against countries like Iran and North Korea, who are ambitiously pursuing their nuclear programs. It is for this simple reason that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) calls upon the five officially recognized nuclear weapon states to move gradually towards complete and universal nuclear disarmament.

http://www.ecssr.ac.ae/ECSSR/appmanager/nd/42;ECSSR_COOKIE=QWyZTgyZyhnDQyL4WgKkNbMQj6G0j802kz6Bbp9TnNqHTSh2JKRy!-908475106!-700593636?_nfpb=true&_nfls=false&_pageLabel=P12800666901383799889645&ftId=%2FFeatureTopic%2FAdil_Rasheed%2FFeatureTopic_0873.xml&_event=viewFeaturedTopic&categoryId=Military+Capabilities+%26+Arms+Race&lang=en

CHHAMMAK CHHALLO GIRL BARES 'FLIP SIDE OF FAME'

BY ADIL RASHEED (Khaleej Times Staff Reporter) / 15 January 2005

Sitting in her chair and watching the waves batter a bank of sturdy rocks at the Jumeirah Beach, Bollywood beauty Kareena Kapoor appeared a little pensive from a distance. A tinge of sadness lent stateliness to her demeanour as if innocence had finally reconciled to the early blows of experience (in the wake of the MMS pictures controversy).

City Times caught up with this elegant and affable scion of the Kapoor clan, while she was filming the last few scenes of her forthcoming movie Milenge Milenge.

Do you think 2004 taught you some hard lessons in life? Have you emerged wiser after the trials of the last year?

You mean professionally.

Yes! Your films Chameli, Dev, Yuva and Fida did not do that well at the box-office even though they won you critical acclaim. Was it a tough year?

Please, do count in Aitraaz and Hulchul, which were successful and as you yourself said even films that were not commercial successes brought me the praise and commendation of the critics. I can say it was a fairly wonderful year for me. I feel humbled by the thought that I had the opportunity to work with film directors like Govind Nihalani and Mani Ratnam.

Do you think fame is as much a bane as it is a boon?

There is always a flip side. There are pitfalls and upheavals in the life of every individual. So one has to take it in one's stride.

Many of your fans and well-meaning admirers believe that though you may have been justified in taking legal action with regard to th recent unfortunate controversy, your reaction blew the whole issue our of proportion.

It was a very traumatic experience for me. It was hurting to know that someone could turn it into a national issue. It was not a matter pertaining to the country's economy to merit such coverage.

Do you still say the photos are bogus.

They were tampered.

It is said that Shahid Kapoor and Salman Khan helped you tied over this critical phase.

Salman has always been a close family friend. His advice was very useful. He told me to let things be. He said it is all part and parcel of fame. Let me say he is one of the few genuine people in the film industry today.

Do you regard the Indian film audience as prudish? It laps up any titillating tale offered to it but baulks at any serious attempt at addressing social issues such as the one taken up in the movie 'Chameli'?

I would not say that the audience is prudish or immature, but it has got used to being in a comfort zone.

You did a lot of films last year. Stars these days don't do so many films out of fear of getting burnt out. How do you manage?

I think I am just following the precedent set by great actresses like Sri Devi, Madhuri and my sister Karisma. I have learnt a lot from my sister and I owe her a lot for my success.

 You have a different style of acting, which is free of mannerism. Some would say it is different from the style of other members of your family. Has it been a conscious move or is it something which came to you naturally?

 One can say that I have consciously tried to be different from my very first film. I had a very deglamourized look in 'Refugee'. I learnt a lot while doing the film.

Since then I have tried to broaden my horizons and have been doing different kinds of roles. I surprised many critics by doing 'Chameli'  and in my forthcoming film 'Bewafai', I am playing a mother with three kids.

Do you like coming to the UAE?

Yes and I love the country. The people of the UAE are very warm and loving. I feel surprised to see that Bollywood stars are so popular among people of various nationalities such as the UAE nationals and the Lebanese and they give such respect, hospitality and warmth. It just adds to the sense of responsibility we feel towards our work. 

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/citytimes/inside.asp?section=citytimes&xfile=/data/citytimes/2005/january/citytimes_january68.xml

YUSUF SAHEB: THE DHRUV TARA (NORTH STAR) OF BOLLYWOOD

'We are living in a utilitarian age' Dilip Saheb

INTERVIEW BY ADIL RASHEED (Khaleej Times Staff Reporter) / 3 February 2005

Even as Dubai readies to release the digitally enhanced version of the greatest Bollywood epic on February 15, thespian Dilip Kumar remembers the people who made it possible in the first place

You do not get any bigger than the legendary Dilip Kumar in the film world. And to have the doyen of Indian cinema speak about the greatest Bollywood epic Mughal-e-Azam, scheduled to be re-released in its digitally enhanced colour-version in Dubai, is a royal treat. But in his characteristic style, the thespian used his silence to telling effect and inferred more than met the ear. After hinting about the unrecognised contribution of the movie's producers and other artistes, he opted not to disturb the hornet's nest. Again, no comment was available on his conspicuous absence from the documentary on the making of Mughal-e-Azam (directed by Jayesh Seth and named Ek Aitihasik Karishma).

Do you think the coloured and digitally-enhanced Mughal-e-Azam has accentuated the epic quality of the film or has it undermined it?

My dear, first tell me have you even seen the movie?

I have seen the movie in its original black-and-white form. The colour version has not yet been released in Dubai.

Okay. Let me say this. It is an epic remake of the film. The changes are not just cosmetic. They are important value-additions. I can say that many of the subdued details and nuances have come to light because of the technological treatment. The re-release of the movie, has therefore, been highly successful.

Akbar Asif, the son of K. Asif, has played a pivotal role in reviving the film for the new generation of audience. Do you think he has done his father proud?

Akbar Asif! I have not met this young boy. I could not even meet him at the premiere of the movie amidst all the 'hungama'. Generally speaking, there are many people who are trying to take credit and if they are trying to do so let us concede it.

Do you think anyone could make a movie like Mughal-e-Azam again? The world and its values seem to have changed and it would be difficult to have filmmakers and actors of similar repute grace the silver screen again.

It is possible that a film like Mughal-e-Azam is made again. People say such films are being made in the West. However, one should know that we are living in a utilitarian age. You understand what I am talking about. We have a utilitarian work culture. Some people tell me they cannot understand the dialogues of Mughal-e-Azam. They say the Urdu spoken in the film is too difficult to understand. They tell me they would watch the movie again to understand it better. So I think the world has changed.

Would you be coming to Dubai for the upcoming premiere of Mughal-e-Azam?

I do not think I would be coming to Dubai. However, I would like to be there. I do not know if it could be worked out but I would love to come if there are adequate arrangements in place.

During the course of our conversation you spoke about some people taking undue credit. Would you like to elaborate?

Do you want to know the truth. Well! It seems strange that there is no mention of the great contribution of the producers Shapoorji-Pallonji in the making of the film. Their dedication and loyalty was vital in making the film such a big success in the first place. But, as they are not amongst us, the world seems to have forgotten them.But, I would like to say here that let us not belittle a great work (Mughal-e-Azam) with small talk.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/citytimes/inside.asp?section=citytimes&xfile=/data/citytimes/2005/february/citytimes_february19.xml

HARDEST PIN-UP TO PIN DOWN

'THE ONLY THING GOING FOR ME IS MY TALENT': SHAHID KAPOOR

BY ADIL RASHEED (Staff Reporter) / 17 January 2005

The hottest pin-up of Bollywood is also the hardest to pin down. Shahid Kapoor, still in his wonder years, comes across as a remarkably level-headed man.

Apparently unaffected by the fame and the controversies that surround him, this new hunk on the block wants to be in for the long haul. City Times conducted a reality check on the rising star at a recent shooting of the film Milenge Milenge, at the Jumeirah beach in Dubai. This is what we found out.

What is the secret of your amazing confidence? 

I frankly do not know about all that. You see, I come from a middle-class family. I do not have anyone backing me. I am very young and am on my own. The only thing going for me is my talent. That is the only positive I am banking on. And I know whatever I do will be printed forever. So I have to give it my very best.

You are a good actor. But critics say your performances appear too studied. You seem to be working too hard.

Do I! (laughs) I'll keep it in mind.

You seem to be totally uninfluenced by the style of acting of your parents (Pankaj Kapoor and Neelima Azim).

The credit goes to my parents. They allowed me to be my own person. They trusted me and never pushed me into doing anything. Again, I am a very individual kind of a person. I like making mistakes and learning from them. Probably, these factors combined to shape my style of acting.

Some actors want to play larger-than-life persona roles and seek superstardom. They believe in building their own personal image. Others prefer getting into the skin of their characters and want to be known as great actors. How do you want to chart your future?

Nobody can plan becoming a superstar. It's something that just happens. One should try to be good at one's work and leave the rest to destiny. I do not think one can plan and plot one's way to superstardom.

What style of acting would you choose?

It is too early for me to speak about any style I would choose in the future. Right now, I am discovering myself and this is just the beginning.

You have not been like other beginners. You don't sign up to any offer that comes your way. In fact you have declined many big-budget films so early in your career. So what is the criteria for doing a film?

I would like to say here that I may have made wrong decisions in turning down some projects. Probably, I'll learn more with experience. However, I strongly feel that you should believe in what you do. You should love what you do. And filmmaking is a long process. It usually takes upto 6 to 8 months for a film to complete. If you do not feel comfortable doing the film at the outset, you should not do it.

In the light of the current controversy do you think you and Kareena over-reacted to the issue by filing a case against the people who took the pictures?

Sorry, I cannot answer that question.

Do you intend to take the case to the very end or would you settle for a settlement?

As I said I cannot answer the question. You would come to know as and when things happen.

From what age did you start dreaming about becoming an actor?

That's a difficult one. Very early in life. I think soon after I outgrew the typical dream any kid has of  becoming a cricketer or an air force pilot. But I seriously started working towards becoming an actor a year before the filming of Ishq Vishq. I had this one-year period to prepare for the movie and to learn the tricks of the trade.

People compare you with Shah Rukh Khan. Do you study his style?

I think when you are in the film industry you study the acting of a lot of stars. But it is very unfair to compare me with such a stalwart. On the other hand, we are also contemporaries so the comparison is unreasonable.

Do other  facets of filmmaking interest you? Do you feel like exploring the other aspects of this wonderful medium?

I am currently totally obsessed with acting. There are too many avenues one could explore, but I do not to end up being a jack of all trades. I think it would take me at least ten years to understand acting. The journey is not all about success, it is about growth.

 http://www.khaleejtimes.com/citytimes/inside.asp?section=citytimes&xfile=/data/citytimes/2005/january/citytimes_january79.xml