Harpoon Missiles : U.S. Says Pakistan Made Changes to Missiles Sold for Defence

Pakistanis' are beyond the need to reverse-engineer Harpoon Missiles says Missile Expert !


The United States has accused Pakistan of illegally modifying American-made missiles to expand its capability to strike land targets, a potential threat to India, according to senior administration and Congressional officials.

The charge, which set off a new outbreak of tensions between the United States and Pakistan, was made in an unpublicized diplomatic protest in late June to Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and other top Pakistani officials.

The accusation comes at a particularly delicate time, when the administration is asking Congress to approve $7.5 billion in aid to Pakistan over the next five years, and when Washington is pressing a reluctant Pakistani military to focus its attentions on fighting the Taliban, rather than expanding its nuclear and conventional forces aimed at India.

While American officials say that the weapon in the latest dispute is a conventional one — based on the Harpoon antiship missiles that were sold to Pakistan by the Reagan administration as a defensive weapon in the cold war — the subtext of the argument is growing concern about the speed with which Pakistan is developing new generations of both conventional and nuclear weapons.

“There’s a concerted effort to get these guys to slow down,” one senior administration official said. “Their energies are misdirected.”

At issue is the detection by American intelligence agencies of a suspicious missile test on April 23 — a test never announced by the Pakistanis — that appeared to give the country a new offensive weapon.

American military and intelligence officials say they suspect that Pakistan has modified the Harpoon antiship missiles that the United States sold the country in the 1980s, a move that would be a violation of the Arms Control Export Act. Pakistan has denied the charge, saying it developed the missile itself. The United States has also accused Pakistan of modifying American-made P-3C aircraft for land-attack missions, another violation of United States law that the Obama administration has protested.

Whatever their origin, the missiles would be a significant new entry into Pakistan’s arsenal against India. They would enable Pakistan’s small navy to strike targets on land, complementing the sizable land-based missile arsenal that Pakistan has developed. That, in turn, would be likely to spur another round of an arms race with India that the United States has been trying, unsuccessfully, to halt. “The focus of our concern is that this is a potential unauthorized modification of a maritime antiship defensive capability to an offensive land-attack missile,” said another senior administration official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter involves classified information.

“The potential for proliferation and end-use violations are things we watch very closely,” the official added. “When we have concerns, we act aggressively.”

A senior Pakistani official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity because the interchanges with Washington have been both delicate and highly classified, said the American accusation was “incorrect.” The official said that the missile tested was developed by Pakistan, just as it had modified North Korean designs to build a range of land-based missiles that could strike India. He said that Pakistan had taken the unusual step of agreeing to allow American officials to inspect the country’s Harpoon inventory to prove that it had not violated the law, a step that administration officials praised.

Some experts are also skeptical of the American claims. Robert Hewson, editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, a yearbook and Web-based data service, said the Harpoon missile did not have the necessary range for a land-attack missile, which would lend credibility to Pakistani claims that they are developing their own new missile. Moreover, he said, Pakistan already has more modern land-attack missiles that it developed itself or acquired from China.

“They’re beyond the need to reverse-engineer old U.S. kit,” Mr. Hewson said in a telephone interview. “They’re more sophisticated than that.” Mr. Hewson said the ship-to-shore missile that Pakistan was testing was part of a concerted effort to develop an array of conventional missiles that could be fired from the air, land or sea to address India’s much more formidable conventional missile arsenal.

The dispute highlights the level of mistrust that remains between the United States and a Pakistani military that American officials like to portray as an increasingly reliable partner in the effort to root out the forces of the Taliban and Al Qaeda on Pakistani territory. A central element of the American effort has been to get the military refocused on the internal threat facing the country, rather than on threat the country believes it still faces from India.

Pakistani officials have insisted that they are making that shift. But the evidence continues to point to heavy investments in both nuclear and conventional weapons that experts say have no utility in the battle against insurgents.

Over the years, the United States has provided a total of 165 Harpoon missiles to Pakistan, including 37 of the older-model weapons that were delivered from 1985 to 1988, said Charles Taylor, a spokesman for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

The country’s nuclear arsenal is expanding faster than any other nation’s. In May, Pakistan conducted a test firing of its Babur medium-range cruise missile, a weapon that military experts say could potentially be tipped with a nuclear warhead. The test was conducted on May 6, during a visit to Washington by President Asif Ali Zardari, but was not made public by Pakistani officials until three days after the meetings had ended to avoid upsetting the talks. While it may be technically possible to arm the Harpoons with small nuclear weapons, outside experts say it would probably not be necessary.

Before lawmakers departed for their summer recess, administration officials briefed Congress on the protest to Pakistan. The dispute has the potential to delay or possibly even derail the legislation to provide Pakistan with $7.5 billion in civilian aid over five years; lawmakers are expected to vote on the aid package when they return from their recess next month.

The legislation is sponsored by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the top Democrat and Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as Representative Howard L. Berman, a California Democrat who leads the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressional aides are now reconciling House and Senate versions of the legislation.

Frederick Jones, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry, declined to comment on the details of the dispute citing its classified nature but suggested that the pending multifaceted aid bill would clear Congress “in a few weeks” and would help cooperation between the two countries.

“There have been irritants in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship in the past and there will be in the future,” Mr. Jones said in a statement, noting that the pending legislation would provide President Obama “with new tools to address troubling behavior.”

Turning Point for Pakistan ! Former IB Chief's revelations shake Pakistan !

Former IB Chief Revelations opens a Pandora Box on the Army and Political Parties in Pakistan !

Pakistan, the seventh largest country in the world has totally changed in the last decade. Atleast a dozen twenty four hour News Channels, Free Pro-active Judiciary and a very diverse vibrant parliament has changed Pakistan. For the first time Pakistani Politicians, Army and the Judiciary are under tremendous scrutiny. Every move is monitored by an army of journalists trying to get a scoop. From Musharraf's removal and Zardari's surrender on the reinstatement of the Supreme court judge was spearheaded by a very organized lethal press. Things may change forever for this 170 million Nuclear armed Nation.

Playing to the tune of a free Brig. Imrtiaz reveals secrets of 1990's which has opened a Pandora box. Brig. Imttiaz rants has shaken up Pakistan and has answered all the unanswered ambiguities of the 1990's. His revelations have dealt a big blow to the Army's reputation and blown the cover even from the very 'honest' politicians. Even the Kosher politician played havoc with the political system with Bribes, Killings, Lies and Deception ! Brig. Imtiaz interviews to television channels has resulted in counter revelations from his rival much to the amazement of a shocked Pakistani nation.

Brig Imtiaz recent revelations and counter revelations :
IJI was invented by the army and ISI.
IJI politicians were taken to Swat and bribed by the ISI to keep PPP from winning elections.
MQM-Jinnahpur controversy was all fake.
MQM was falsely accused of having torture cells in Karachi.
MQM refused money from Brig. Imtiaz
Army and ISI collaborated with the then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan in undermining Nawaz Sharif's Government and dismissing it later.
ISI funded the Right to win elections in Pakistan in 1992 and 1994.
Affidavit names politicians who took money from ISI.
Former CJP quotes affidavit submitted by former ISI chief Lt Gen (r) Asad Durrani in court
List of recipients includes Nawaz Sharif, Abida Hussain, Pir Pagaro and Jamaat Islami.

Counter revelations by Sheikh Rashid :
Brig. Imtiaz was trying to creat a misunderstanding between Nawaz Sharif and Sheikh Rashid (former PML-Q.
Brig. Imtiaz has amassed property all over Pakistan and siphoned off money from the ISI account.


The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) gave millions of rupees to different politicians during former president Ghulam Ishaq Khan’s regime and no one has ever denied receiving money from the agency, former chief justice of Pakistan Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui said on Wednesday.

Talking to a private TV channel, Brig. Imtiaz said the ISI was an intelligence agency and should not have interfered in politics, or be used against politicians. He said former ISI director general Lt Gen Asad Durrani had informed the Supreme Court that he had given money to politicians, ostensibly to ‘convince’ them to join the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) against the PPP (Benazir's Party).

Justice (r) Siddiqui told the channel that he had said at that time that the ISI’s role should not be political. He said the case was still pending in the Supreme Court at the time of the 1999 coup. He said Lt Gen (r) Durrani had presented an affidavit in court, giving details of the money distributed to different politicians.

According to the affidavit, then chief of army staff General (r) Mirza Aslam Baig had advised the intelligence agency in September 1990 that it should give logistic support to the transfer of funds from the business community in Karachi to the IJI during the 1988 election.

According to the written affidavit of July 24, 1994, Lt Gen (r) Durrani said he was informed at the time that the step had the government’s complete support. After the orders, he said he opened a number of accounts in banks in Karachi, Rawalpindi and Quetta.

A man from Karachi named Younas Habib had deposited Rs 140 million in a bank account and the rest of the money was transferred to a special fund.

According to the affidavit, acquired by the TV channel,
former caretaker prime minister Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi received Rs 5 million,
former Sindh chief minister Jam Sadiq Rs 5 million,
former prime minister Muhammad Khan Junejo Rs 2.5 million,
Nawaz Sharif Rs 3.5 million, senior politician
Pir Pagaro Rs 2 million, the Jamaat-e-Islami Rs 5 million,
Mir Afzal Khan Rs 10 million,
Abida Hussain Rs 1 million,
Lt Gen Rafaqat Rs 5.6 million for managing the media campaign,
Humayun Marri Rs 1.5 million,
former prime minister Zafarullah Jamali Rs 4 million,
Kakar Rs 1 million,
Jam Yousaf Rs 0.7 million,
Hasil Bizenjo Rs 0.5 million, Nadir Mengal Rs 1 million,
Altaf Hussain Qureshi and Mustafa Sadiq Rs 0.5 million,
Salahuddin Rs 0.3 million,
smaller groups Rs 5.4 million and others received Rs 3.339 million.


Former chief of Intelligence Bureau (IB) Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmed Friday disclosed that Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Nasirullah Babar and IB chief of PPP regime Masood Sharif carried out a more serious operation than ‘Midnight Jackal’. The operation against PML(N) was called “Midday Wolf”. Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmed said under operation Midday Wolf 60 members of National Assembly were taken to Swat and their debts were written off.

Midnight Jackal’ was launched to overthrow Benazir.The Operation Midnight Jackal was launched to topple Benazir Bhutto’s government.He added that the operation was not a big issue, but the politicians had politicised it.

He revealed that General (r) Aslam Beg, the army chief at the time, wanted to bring a change in the National Assembly through a no-confidence motion with the help of Operation Midnight Jackal, as General Beg believed that Benazir Bhutto’s policies were contrary to those of the army. He said General Beg did not agree to Benazir’s Afghan policy. The former IB chief said after Benazir Bhutto was sworn in as prime minister, General Beg and then president Ghulam Ishaq Khan had discussed at length the possibility of replacing her, adding that the operation was also launched for that reason.

Brigadier (r) Imtiaz said his major mistake was his failure to refuse to obey General Beg’s orders. During a subsequent inquiry, General (r) Hameed Gul advised him not to speak against the army chief as that could raise questions about the army, he maintained. Brigadier (r) Imtiaz told the channel that he was retired on the directions of General (r) Naseerullah Babar.

General (r) Asif Nawaz Janjua had suspected Imtiaz of tapping the former’s phone calls, the ex-IB chief said. Imtiaz said stayed quiet throughout his service since he did not want his institution defamed. He said president Ghulam Ishaq had offered him to join his “gang” and offered him privileges, as a cold war for power was raging between Nawaz Sharif and the then president. He said he had been meeting both the leaders and tried bring them together.

The former IB chief said he was also blamed for convincing General (r) Akhtar Abdul Rehman to join then president Ziaul Haq on the flight to Bahawalpur at the eleventh hour, whereas the names of those going to Bahawalpur had already been finalised in the General Headquarters.

Jaswant Singh Calls BJP Indian Version of KKK !

NEW DELHI: BJP's dissidents seem to be digging in for a long fight even as expelled party leader Jaswant Singh added another turn of phrase - apart
from Arun Shourie's "humpty-dumpty" and "Alice in blunderland" - in describing his former outfit as an Indian version of the white supramacist Ku Klux Klan.

Jaswant Singh's reference to the BJP, of which he was member for 30-odd years, as a KKK-type outfit came in an interview to a news agency. Apparently in reaction to a question on why he was sacked, the former minister said, "Please don't ask me. I am outside the magic circle of advisers or thinkers. Because I am not from the RSS, is that why? So are we a political party? Is the BJP becoming some kind of an Indian version of Ku Klux Klan?"

The former minister refused to elaborate saying, "You know what the Klan means. You don't ask me about this." His outburst seems to suggest he now sees BJP as a secretive, violent sect that has no place for leaders like him who may espouse a sense of independent inquiry. His comment might also have to do with reports that Arun Shourie was not likely to meet the same fate as Singh due to the former's proximity to the RSS.

He chose to skirt around a question about why BJP leader L K Advani was rejected by people as a prime ministerial aspirant. He said it was for the BJP veteran to reflect on this. "It would be impertinent and perhaps, to a degree also, I would be commenting on my past 30 years with him if I commented on his characteristics, political or personal," he said.

Asked if Advani was surrounded by a coterie, Singh suggested his former leader was more led than a leader. "Does he run a coterie or does the coterie run him," Singh asked. He said BJP should reflect on its relationship with RSS and be "mature enough to cut the umbilical cord".

"I feel for BJP to gain its full personality as a political organisation, they have to stand on their own feet. Now they should be mature enough to cut the umbilical cord," he said. He disagreed with Shourie's suggestion that RSS should take over the party saying it will not work. "I would like the BJP to reflect on what has happened and try to be a party of the 21st Century. They (RSS) are exclusivist. Besides, they are an organisation committed to social work," he said.

To a question on a long rope being extended to Vasundhara Raje in Rajasthan and Shourie merely being asked for a clarification, he said, "I am sorry. I cannot comment on it. I was told don't come to the meeting. Of course. Good luck to Raje. But there are obviously double standards."

Asked if his expulsion was a message to other dissidents in the party, he shot back: "Am I a dissident. I am sorry. Your question suggests I am some kind of a dissident. I feel I am one of the original founding members of the party. Who felt that I had raised queries or questions? And is questioning or wondering or enquiring about the functioning of the party dissidence? So are we moving into an era of thought control?"

Asked about chances of reconciliation with BJP, Singh said, "Reconciliation to what? Reconciliation to an insult?"

He ruled out joining the Samajwadi Party, which has invited him to join it. "I am happy to be an independent." He said he was an independent member of the Parliament now representing Darjeeling constituency and Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) has reaffirmed its total faith in him. "I will serve the cause of GJM and Gorkhaland. That is my karma bhoomi and my janam bhoomi is the desert. I shall serve them," he said.

He ruled out stepping down as chairman of the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee following his expulsion from BJP. Singh said he had consulted the secretary general of Lok Sabha, who said that rules did not require him to step down. The Committee is a mini-Parliament and it was the prerogative of the Speaker to remove him on certain grounds which do not apply to him, he said. When told he had become chairman because BJP nominated him to it, he said, "BJP nominated me only to contest the elections."

Healthcare Systems: U.S. vs. Japan

Fukuoka, Japan—No one here in this island nation of 130 million has gone bankrupt as a result of medical fees. In a country notorious for $80 cantaloupes and coffin-size hotel rooms for $200, healthcare services are remarkably inexpensive.

Although I am fully insured in the United States, my family opts to opt out while in Japan, paying full price for basic health services such as dental, ophthalmology and otolaryngology. (That's right: When's the last time you've had a routine visit with an ear doctor.)

Such services cost about $20, the same price as my co-pay would have been stateside, and we don't need an appointment.

Convenient access to healthcare, with its inherent emphasis on preventative medicine, should be the hallmark of any system.

The United States lags far behind. The well-publicized issue of millions uninsured or underinsured is only part of the story. Many more with health insurance avoid doctors, disgusted by the time-consuming and often useless process.

Sicko comparisons

Every healthcare system has its shortcomings. Japan doesn't know how it will meet the demands of an aging society. Japanese doctors themselves are calling for reforms, citing fatigue and low pay among medical workers as well as more and more hospitals in the red, as detailed in a May 2008 article in the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine and elsewhere.

Michael Moore's 2007 movie SiCKO, painting a rosy picture of healthcare systems around the world, misses the mark. Moore praises the French system, for example, but healthcare there is the main driver for the country's overall deficit; and citizens pay on average more than 18 percent of their income on health, albeit largely unknowingly because funds are mostly drawn through taxation, according to a 2008 whitepaper by Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute.

And despite the guaranteed inclusion of Bachman-Turner Overdrive's music on the airwaves by law, life isn't necessarily better in Canada. Waiting times for "elective" procedures such as cataract surgery and more pressing matters such as heart surgery can be long and, in some cases, deadly. Advocates quibble over the extent of the wait, not the lack of wait.

A more accurate world picture would be billions of people with no healthcare and a lucky minority, living in perhaps 50 of the world's 200-some nations, with decent access. And among these wealthier nations, the United States has a system generally worse than other imperfect systems for a large swath of its population.

Prevention

We cannot perfectly compare national healthcare systems, nor can we wholly adopt another's. Japan's system, for example, is bolstered by low levels of violence, drug addiction, obesity, and health-and-income disparity, which are all rampant in the United States.

Japan's emphasis on preventive medicine, though, is partly responsible for producing one of the healthiest populations on earth, with a life expectancy over four years greater than that of the United States. (America now ranks 50th for life expectancy, according to the CIA World Factbook.)

High-gadgetry treatment, not prevention, is the focus in the United States. This is unfortunate because many of our biggest health concerns don't need to exist: HIV, obesity, diabetes, kidney disease requiring dialysis, tooth decay, and many cancers, all "curable" through extensive prevention campaigns.

Part of this would be behavioral changes: Condoms have saved more lives than an HIV vaccine; quitting smoking is hard, but treating tobacco-induced lung cancer and heart disease is harder. Easier access to medical care is the other part: Colon cancer takes up to a decade to develop and can be stopped rather easily if only more people had routine examinations.

But we are stuck with a system in which millions of Americans have zero access to healthcare and might as well live in a developing country. Millions more are underinsured or have patchy coverage, depending on employment, resulting in inconsistent care. And millions more, fully insured, would rather not deal with frequently changing employer-based healthcare plans or wasted time in doctors' offices despite appointments.

If, as in Japan, all citizens could walk into a doctor's office when they needed it and also have continuous coverage to ensure regular check ups, our physical strength might rival our military strength. The devil, it seems, is in the details... or at least in funding priorities.

Majority of Americans Believe Health Care Reform 'Myths'

More than 50 percent of Americans believe a public insurance option will increase health care costs, according to a new survey on assertions the White House has called myths.


The national survey, conducted from Aug. 14 - 18, involved a random sample of 600 Americans aged 18 and older living in the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C. Respondents indicated whether or not they believed 19 claims about health care reform, each of which is considered a myth by the White House.


The results could speak to the current partisan debate on a proposed health care overhaul. While overall the majority of Americans said they believe many of the assertions, more Republicans and Independents than Democrats stood by the claims.


"It's perhaps not surprising that more Republicans believe these things than Democrats," said study scientist Dr. Aaron Carroll, director of Indiana University's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research. "What is surprising is just how many Republicans - and Independents - believe them. If the White House hopes to convince the majority of Americans that they are misinformed about health care reform, there is much work to be done."


Among the results on items the White House considers myths:

67 percent of respondents believe that wait times for health care services, such as surgery, will increase (91 percent of Republicans, 37 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Independents).
About five out of 10 believe the federal government will become directly involved in making personal health care decisions (80 percent of Republicans, 25 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of Independents).
Roughly six out of 10 Americans believe taxpayers will be required to pay for abortions (78 percent of Republicans, 30 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Independents)
46 percent believe reforms will result in health care coverage for all illegal immigrants (66 percent of Republicans, 29 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of Independents).
54 percent believe the public option will increase premiums for Americans with private health insurance (78 percent of Republicans, 28 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Independents).
Five out of 10 think cuts will be made to Medicare in order to cover more Americans (66 percent of Republicans, 37 percent of Democrats, 44 percent of Independents).

There were exceptions.


Fewer participants believe "myths" regarding the impact of proposed changes on current health insurance coverage. For instance, less than 30 percent think private insurance coverage will be eliminated. And just 36 percent think a public insurance option will put private insurance companies out of business.


In addition, only three out of 10 respondents believe the government will require the elderly to make decisions about how and when they will die.

Key Proposals On Obama's Health Care plan !

Key Proposals and here is a refresher on the main proposals before Congress !

Expanding Medicaid
Most uninsured Americans are in working families, and most have low incomes, so many of the uninsured stand to benefit from proposals to expand Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor. The idea is to allow people with incomes above the poverty level into Medicaid. In some proposals, this would include people who make up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level ($16,245 for an individual; $33,075 for a family of four). One proposal is to allow these people to keep Medicaid for five years, then require them to sign up for coverage through one of the new private insurance exchanges. Expanding Medicaid could reach 20 million more people in a program that already exists throughout the nation. That's more than 40 percent of the uninsured.

One problem: State Medicaid programs are all over the map when it comes to the benefits they provide. And in a bad economy, states are in no position to pay their share of a larger program.


Expanding Medicare
Allowing people ages 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare would give a new alternative to these 24 million "pre-Medicare" people, 5 million of whom are uninsured. Medicare, established in 1965, is familiar to many people, and popular. It would be relatively easy to open it to younger beneficiaries. The cost, however, may keep people at bay. Many couldn't afford to buy Medicare at full cost — that is, without the subsidy currently provided to those older than 65. Health care providers complain that Medicare payment rates are too low, so expanding the program jeopardizes their bottom line.

Insurance Exchanges
A way of bringing buyers and sellers together, providing one-stop shopping among an array of competing health plans. To be listed on the exchange, all plans would have to meet minimum coverage standards, provide a minimum package of benefits and explain themselves in clear language. Exchanges could solve one of the biggest problems in the current health insurance marketplace: It's hard to comparison-shop. They also might allow employers to offer a wider range of choices, instead of negotiating with insurers one at a time as they do now.

But exchanges only work in areas that have enough plans to choose from, and many areas have only two health plans available. Some say exchanges have no record of reducing premiums.

Mandating Insurance
The government would require you to purchase insurance — with subsidies for those who can't afford it — or pay a tax penalty. Some propose a mandate on most employers to offer coverage, too. Requiring everyone to purchase insurance is key to making a universal system work in the U.S. Here's why: When the uninsured fall sick and can't pay their bills, it costs everyone money. Hospitals and doctors recoup their losses by charging insurance companies more. Insurers, in turn, pass that cost on to their clients, through higher premiums. In essence, people with health insurance are helping to cover the costs of the 46 million people who are uninsured.

A fundamental question: Should the government tell individuals or companies how to spend their money? A mandate on employers also could limit wage increases and discourage hiring. Minimum-wage workers could lose their jobs if employers have to cut costs to satisfy the mandate.

New Coverage Standards
At a minimum, many say a new health care law should reduce the most glaring inequities and stabilize coverage for people who don't have access to workplace-based insurance. Requirements would include banning insurers from refusing coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Also there would be strict limits on how much premiums could vary based on age, place of residence and other individual characteristics. These new requirements may appear simple, but they won't work without some others — such as a mandate that virtually everyone buy coverage. Otherwise, they could drive up premiums as older or sicker individuals buy coverage while younger, healthier people don't.

Public Plan
A government-run health plan similar to Medicare but without age restrictions. Care would be provided by existing hospitals, doctors and others. Another model is the plans that public employees have in many states.

Proponents say a public plan would set the pace for private insurers, forcing them to be more efficient. Opponents fear that a public plan would have an unfair advantage and draw people out of private health plans, making them financially unviable. That would pave the way for a government takeover of all health insurance. Possible compromise: Nonprofit health "cooperatives" owned by members, launched with federal startup funds.

Subsidizing Coverage
Under the leading proposals, the government would come to the rescue if you can't afford insurance that meets your needs. Details vary, but in general you'd get varying degrees of subsidy if your income is up to five times the poverty level ($54,150 for an individual; $110,250 for a family of four). Small employers would also get a subsidy to encourage them to cover workers. Again, cost is a factor. Critics balk at the $723 billion to $1 trillion price tag for subsidies over 10 years. Government subsidies might also prompt employers of lower-income workers to drop coverage — or not to start offering it.

Confused about the Obama Health Plan ? What will it mean for you ?

How exactly would new health care overhaul legislation affect you? Lets see what best fits your situation and see what the major proposals currently before Congress would mean for you.



If you are Uninsured ! Can't Afford Insurance?
If you're among the 46 million Americans without health insurance, chances are you worry about your health — with good reason. Studies show uninsured people are more likely to die after a heart attack or stroke, more likely to get diagnosed with cancer at a later stage, and less likely to have their diabetes or high blood pressure under control. You are also part of the reason for spiraling costs. With no affordable alternative, the uninsured often seek treatment at a late stage in an illness — and in emergency rooms, where costs are highest.

1.Subsidizing Coverage
Under the leading proposals, the government would come to the rescue if you can't afford insurance that meets your needs. Many experts say subsidies will be necessary if the new law mandates all Americans to have coverage. Details vary, but in general, subsidies would be available if your income is up to five times the poverty level ($54,150 for an individual and $110,250 for a family of four). Small employers would also get a subsidy to encourage them to cover workers.

Drawbacks: It's expensive, at $723 billion over 10 years by one estimate. Government subsidies might prompt employers of lower-income workers to drop coverage — or not to start offering it.

2. Mandating Insurance
Requiring everyone to purchase insurance — or otherwise pay a tax penalty — is a cornerstone to making a universal system work in the U.S. Here's why: When the uninsured fall sick and can't pay their bills, it costs everyone money. Hospitals and doctors recoup their losses by charging insurance companies more. Insurers, in turn, pass that cost on to their clients, through higher premiums. In essence, people with health insurance are helping to cover the costs of the 46 million people who are uninsured. The idea behind a mandate, however, is that requiring millions more people to pay into the insurance pool cuts down on catastrophic, uninsured costs while pumping more money into the system. The result? Lower premiums for everyone.

Drawbacks: Does the government have any right to tell individuals or companies how to spend their money? A mandate on employers could discourage hiring and wage increases. Some minimum-wage workers could lose their jobs if employers have to cut costs to satisfy the mandate.

3. Public Plan
Senate Democrats back a government-sponsored health plan similar to Medicare but without age restrictions. The government would administer the plan. Care would be provided by nongovernment hospitals, doctors and others. Public plans would broaden choices; people could choose a public plan or conventional private insurance. The price should be reasonable because public plans would have low overhead — no big marketing budgets, no profit margins. Proponents say a public plan would set the pace for private insurers, forcing them to lower premiums.

Drawbacks: Opponents fear that a public plan would have an unfair advantage. Lower premiums and good benefits might draw people out of private health plans, making them financially unviable and paving the way for totally government-run financing. Critics also say Medicare, the model for public insurance, does not have a good record on controlling health costs.

4. Expanding Medicaid
Most uninsured Americans are in working families, and most have low incomes — less than twice the poverty level. Many stand to benefit from proposals to expand Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor. The idea is to allow people with higher incomes into Medicaid — possibly those with up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level ($16,245 for an individual; $33,075 for a family of four). One proposal would let people get Medicaid for five years, then require them to sign up for coverage through one of the new private insurance exchanges. Expanding Medicaid could allow up to 20 million people access to coverage — that's more than 40 percent of the uninsured.

Drawbacks: State Medicaid programs are all over the map in the benefits they provide. States are in no position to pay their share of expanded eligibility or of nationally standardized benefits.

5.Expanding Medicare
This would allow people ages 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare, the federal program for those older than 65. It would give a new alternative to 24 million "pre-Medicare" people, 5 million of whom are uninsured. People in this age group are finding that job-based health insurance is eroding. If they have it, it comes with more exclusions. And what's covered requires more and more out-of-pocket payments. Within a few years, 20 percent of all Americans will be in this age group. Medicare, which was established 44 years ago, is familiar and popular. It would be relatively easy to open it to somewhat younger beneficiaries.

Drawbacks: Many people couldn't afford to buy Medicare at its full cost. Health care providers complain that Medicare payment rates are too low, and that expanding the program would jeopardize their bottom line.




Self-Insured And Worried?
If you buy health insurance on your own — because you're self-employed or your employer doesn't offer it — you know how expensive and iffy coverage can be. You're among as many as 17 million Americans who buy nongroup health insurance. You're likely to face high premiums, large deductibles and copayments, and the risk that your insurance won't be renewed if you get sick.

1. New Coverage Standards
Right now, many of you have trouble buying and keeping coverage. Many of the insurance horror stories in recent years stem from insurers' attempts to avoid coverage for people at high risk of getting sick. So at a minimum, many say a new health care law should reduce the most glaring inequities and stabilize coverage for people who don't have access to workplace-based insurance. Requirements would include banning insurers from refusing coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Also there would be strict limits on how much premiums could vary based on age, place of residence and other individual characteristics.

Drawbacks: These new requirements may appear simple, but they won't work without some others — such as a mandate that virtually everyone buy coverage. Otherwise, they could drive up premiums as older or sicker individuals buy coverage while younger, healthier people don't.

2.Public Plan
A government-run public plan would give another option to people who are self-employed or can't get insurance through the workplace. Benefits would be as good as employer-sponsored insurance, and subscribers couldn't be turned away or have their coverage canceled for health reasons. Premiums should be lower because the public plan wouldn't have the marketing, sales, underwriting and administrative costs of private nongroup coverage. Premiums would be scaled to subscribers' incomes.

Drawbacks: Opponents fear a public plan would have an unfair advantage because of government subsidies and lower overhead costs. It might lure people away from private health plans, making them financially unviable. Eventually, a public plan might destroy the private nongroup market and become the only option for people who don't get workplace-based insurance or qualify for Medicaid. Critics also say Medicare, the model for a public plan, does not have a good record on controlling health costs.

3. Insurance Exchanges
Exchanges could solve one of the biggest problems in the current health insurance marketplace: It's hard to comparison-shop. They are ways of bringing buyers and sellers of health insurance together, providing one-stop shopping among an array of competing health plans. To be listed on the exchange, all plans would have to meet minimum coverage standards and explain themselves in clear language.

Drawbacks: Exchanges only work in areas that have enough plans to choose from. Some critics say exchanges work only if people are required to buy insurance and there are subsidies to make them affordable — two proposals under active consideration. Some say exchanges have no record of reducing premiums, or that exchanges might unfairly favor public insurance plans.

4. Expanding Medicare
Government-run Medicare is established, familiar and popular. It would be relatively easy to lower the eligibility age from 65 to 55. And that would be an important new alternative, since buying an individual insurance policy is especially expensive for older workers — if they are eligible for coverage at all.

Drawbacks: Many people couldn't afford to buy Medicare at full cost. Health care providers complain that Medicare payment rates are too low, so expanding the program jeopardizes their bottom line.

5. Subsidizing Coverage
New subsidies from the government could be a boon for those now struggling to pay for individual insurance policies. Details vary, but in general you'd get varying degrees of subsidy if your income is up to five times the poverty level ($54,150 for an individual; $110,250 for a family of four).

Drawbacks: It's expensive, at more than $720 billion over 10 years, by one estimate. Even so, some who favor subsidies point out that proposed subsidies are too low; the premium for a standard health plan currently offered to federal workers would amount to 18 percent of the income for a family of three making 400 percent of the poverty level ($73,240).


Want Better Coverage? Under Insured ?
Is your health insurance OK ... unless you get sick? Worry about going bankrupt if you get really sick? You're among the 25 million to 37 million American adults younger than 65 who are under-insured. You're at risk of spending more than 10 percent of your income on medical care. Because costs are going up and coverage is eroding, your numbers are growing. "If you are sick and earn a modest income, then you are probably under-insured, even if you have employer-sponsored coverage," says Jon Gabel of the National Opinion Research Center.

1. New Coverage Standards
The proposed requirements for the new system go to the heart of your problem. Many of the insurance horror stories in recent years stem from insurers' attempts to avoid covering people at high risk of getting sick. Most in Congress would agree that it's imperative to make the system equitable. Insurers would no longer be able to refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Also, there would be strict limits on how much premiums could vary based on age, place of residence and other individual characteristics.

Drawbacks: These new requirements may appear simple, but they won't work without some others — such as a mandate that virtually everyone buy coverage. Otherwise, they would drive up premiums for people who buy insurance on their own to pay the costs of the newly enrolled older and sicker people.

2.Public Plan
You might see the most relief through a government-sponsored health plan similar to Medicare but without age restrictions. The government would administer the plan, but the care would be provided by nongovernment hospitals, doctors and others. Coverage would be comprehensive, and subscribers generally would have low deductibles and copays. The price should be reasonable because of low administrative costs — no big marketing budgets, no profit margins.

Drawbacks: Opponents fear that a public plan would have an unfair advantage. Lower premiums and good benefits might lure people out of private health insurance plans, making them financially unviable. Others say Medicare, the model for public insurance, does not have a good record on controlling health care costs.

3. Insurance Exchanges
If you have Swiss-cheese insurance that doesn't cover your needs, an exchange could help you shop for a better deal. It is a way of bringing buyers and sellers together, providing one-stop shopping among an array of competing health plans. To be listed, all would have to meet minimum coverage standards and explain themselves in clear language. Exchanges would also allow employers to offer a wider range of choices, instead of negotiating with insurers one at a time. That would increase competition and lower prices.

Drawbacks: Exchanges only work in areas that have enough insurance plans to choose from. Some critics say exchanges work only if people are required to buy insurance and are provided subsidies to make insurance affordable — two proposals under active consideration. Unless access to exchanges is restricted, some critics say they'll drain younger, healthier workers from job-based plans, making the plans more expensive for those who remain. Some say exchanges have no record of reducing premiums.


4.Expanding Medicaid
All the major congressional proposals include expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor. The idea is to allow people with higher incomes to qualify — some propose up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level ($16,245 for an individual; $33,075 for a family of four). One proposal is to use Medicaid expansion to get more people adequate coverage, then, after five years, require them to sign up for coverage through one of the new private insurance exchanges.

Drawbacks: State Medicaid programs are all over the map in the benefits they provide. States are in no position to pay their share of expanded eligibility or nationally standardized benefits. As the program for the poor, Medicaid carries a stigma, and programs have not always done a good job of enrolling those who are already eligible.

5.Expanding Medicare
By lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 55, Medicare buy-in would give a new alternative to 24 million "pre-Medicare" people, 5 million of whom are uninsured. Many are finding that job-based health insurance is eroding. If they have it, it comes with increasingly more exclusions. And what's covered requires more and more out-of-pocket payments. Within a few years, 20 percent of all Americans will be in this age group.

Drawbacks: Many people couldn't afford to buy Medicare at full cost. Health care providers complain that Medicare payment rates are too low, so expanding the program jeopardizes their bottom line.

6.Subsidizing Coverage
Under the leading proposals, the government would come to the rescue if you can't afford insurance that meets your needs. Details vary, but in general you'd get varying degrees of subsidy if your income is up to five times the poverty level ($54,150 for an individual; $110,250 for a family of four). Small employers would also get subsidy to encourage them to cover workers.

Drawbacks: It's expensive, at $723 billion over 10 years by one estimate. Government subsidies might prompt employers of lower-income workers to drop coverage — or not to start offering it.



Don't Want Insurance? Ignorance is Bliss category
If you're uninsured but your income is more than 2.5 times the federal poverty level ($27,075 for an individual), you might be uninsured by choice. At least 40 percent of the 46 million people without coverage may fall in this category. Experts say you should be able to afford some kind of coverage. Signing you up is essential to making the U.S. insurance system cost-effective. Those who can afford insurance yet opt out tend to be young, healthy and single. But an insurance system works best when there is a mix of people; the low-cost healthy subsidize the high-cost sick.



1.Mandating Insurance
If a bill is passed, it will most likely require all who can afford insurance to buy it — or pay a tax penalty. Many people — especially younger, healthier adults — won't buy insurance unless they're required to; they think they don't need it. But sometimes they suffer serious illness or trauma and end up not being able to pay their bills, which costs everyone else money. If they paid monthly premiums, these lower-cost subscribers would also help lower the premiums for everyone else.

Drawbacks: Many say the government has no business telling individuals or companies how they must spend their money. A mandate on employers discourages hiring and wage increases. Minimum-wage workers are most likely to lose their jobs if employers have to cut costs to satisfy the mandate.

2.Public Plan
If a public plan — similar to Medicare but without age restrictions — could offer good coverage at a lower premium, some of the 20 million people who choose not to spend their money on health insurance might be persuaded to buy in. Since public plans would have low overhead — no big marketing budgets, no profit margins — proponents say they should have lower premiums. That might also prompt private plans to lower their prices.

Drawbacks: Opponents say public plans might undermine private health plans, making them financially unviable and paving the way for totally government-run financing. Critics also say Medicare, the model for public insurance, does not have a good record on controlling health costs.

3. Insurance Exchanges
If you're forced to buy insurance under a new law, exchanges would make it easier to choose a plan that meets your needs and budget. They are ways of bringing buyers and sellers of health insurance together, providing one-stop shopping among an array of competing health plans. To be listed on the exchange, all plans would have to meet minimum coverage standards, offer a standard package of benefits and explain themselves in clear language.

Drawbacks: Exchanges only work in areas that have enough plans to choose from. Some critics say exchanges work only if people are required to buy insurance and subsidies are provided to make it affordable — two proposals under active consideration. Unless access to exchanges is restricted, some say they'll drain younger, healthier workers from job-based plans, making them more expensive for those who remain. Some say exchanges have no record of reducing premiums.

4. Expanding Medicare
About a third of the voluntarily uninsured are between the ages of 45 and 64. It's possible some of these people would take advantage of a proposal to expand the government's Medicare program. It would lower the eligibility age from 65 to 55.

Drawbacks: Many people couldn't afford to buy Medicare at full cost. Health care providers complain that Medicare payment rates are too low, so expanding the program jeopardizes their bottom line.

5. Subsidizing Coverage
If you've hung back from buying coverage because of the cost, this feature might change your mind. Details vary, but in general you'd get varying degrees of government subsidy if your income is up to five times the poverty level ($54,150 for an individual, $110,250 for a family of four). Small employers would also get a subsidy to encourage them to cover workers.

Drawbacks: It's expensive, at $723 billion over 10 years by one estimate. Government subsidies might prompt employers of lower-income workers to drop coverage — or not to offer it.


Happy With Your Coverage? You have Insurance ! You hate Obama's Health Plan category ?

If you're in this category, chances are you're one of about 164 million people in America who get coverage through their employers. But trouble could be closing in. Your premiums, and the contribution by your employer, have more than doubled since 1999. And chances are good that your company is planning to reduce its premium contribution and increase the amount you have to pay out of pocket when you see a doctor or fill a prescription. If you lose your job (more than 15 million people are currently unemployed), you lose your health coverage — something that happens nowhere else in the industrialized world.

1.Public Plan
Under Senate proposals, a government-sponsored health plan would be offered to workers in small companies, which are much less likely to offer health benefits. A House of Representatives plan would phase in eligibility for larger companies. For those eligible, public plans would broaden choices; people could choose a public plan or conventional private insurance. The price should be reasonable because public plans would have low overhead — no big marketing budgets, no profit margins. Also, a public plan may set the pace for private insurers, forcing them to be more efficient and less costly.

Drawbacks: A public plan could have an unfair advantage because of government subsidies and lower overhead costs. They might lure people out of private health plans, making them financially unviable and paving the way for totally government-run financing. According to one estimate, public plans would draw 15 million people out of employer-based plans. Critics also say Medicare, the model for public insurance, does not have a good record on controlling health costs.


2. Insurance Exchanges
Exchanges answer one of the biggest problems in the current health insurance marketplace: It's hard to comparison-shop. Employees at small companies — which currently tend to have fewer options — would be able to choose among an array of health plans that would be obligated to offer coverage that meets minimum benefit standards. Premiums could not be based, as they are now, on health status or health risk. The President's Council on Economic Advisers says widespread participation in exchanges could bring down the price of a health plan by 20 percent, roughly $1,000 a year.

Drawbacks: Exchanges only work in areas that have enough plans to choose from. Some critics say exchanges work only if everyone is required to buy insurance and it is subsidized to make it affordable for low-income Americans — two proposals under active consideration. If exchanges are open to everyone, including those who currently have insurance, it could drain younger, healthier workers from job-based plans. That could make existing job-based plans more expensive for those who remain. Some say exchanges have no track record of reducing premiums.

3. Expanding Medicare
This would allow people between the ages of 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare, the federal program for those 65 and older. It would give a new alternative to 24 million "pre-Medicare" people, 5 million of whom are uninsured. Many in this age group are finding that job-based health insurance is eroding. If they have it, it comes with more exclusions. And what's covered requires more and more out-of-pocket payments. Within a few years, 20 percent of all Americans will be in this group.

Drawbacks: Many people couldn't afford to buy Medicare at full cost. Depending on the cost and eligibility rules, opening Medicare to people between the ages of 55 and 64 could lure many out of workplace plans, destabilizing them. Health care providers complain that Medicare payment rates are too low, so expanding the program jeopardizes their bottom line.

Why the Hindu right wing loves Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah

The BJP expelled the former foreign minister Jaswant Singh from the party following his recent book praising Pakistani leader Mohammed Ali Jinnah ! Conservative members of the right-wing BJP have slammed the publication, and had mounted a campaign to ostracize Singh, trashing the BJP with epithets such as the ‘Bhartiya Jinnah Party.’

Live press conference :

http://www.ndtv.com/news/videos/video_player.php?id=1147507


The book has aroused a lot of passions in India because it praises M.A Jinnah as a great leader. It emphasizes that till 1916 Lucknow Pact Jinnah was the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity. He later became more involved in the Muslim aspect of the war fearing that they would be marginalized.

Why are some of India's Hindu nationalist leaders in love with Mohammed Ali Jinnah? The founder of Pakistan is a much reviled man in India, treated as a minor conspiratorial figure, and considered to be the architect of the bloody partition of the country on religious lines in 1947. Even the secular Congress party abhors him.


So when leaders of the Hindu right sing praises for Mr Jinnah, they stir up a hornet's nest. Four years ago, the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) LK Advani, who led a successful Hindu revivalist movement in the early 1990s, praised the founder of Pakistan during a visit to the country. This raised the hackles of Hindu fellow travellers and invited scorn from the Congress party. The BJP leader even offered to put in his papers after the kerfuffle.

Now Jaswant Singh, a doughty senior party leader and former finance and external affairs minister, who counts people like Strobe Talbott as his friends and chess, golf and polo as his pursuits, has praised Mr Jinnah as a "self made man" who "created something out of nothing and single-handedly stood up against the might of the Congress party and against the British who didn't really like him." He has expanded on his thesis in his new, unimaginatively titled 669-page book Jinnah: India-Partition- Independence, which released this week.

What is surprising is Mr Singh's defence of Mr Jinnah in a TV interview in the run-up to the book release where he is even more effusive in his praise of the Quaid-e-Azam (Great Leader) as Mr Jinnah is remembered as in his homeland. He demolishes the popular Indian historiography of Mr Jinnah being a Hindu-basher and a born demagogue. "That certainly he was not," says the BJP leader. "His principal disagreement was with the Congress party. Repeatedly he says and he says this even in his last statements to the press and to the constituent Assembly of Pakistan."

Then Mr Singh goes on to say that India misunderstood Mr Jinnah "because we needed to create a demon". He insists the Congress party's majoritarian instincts were responsible for the federalist Mr Jinnah turning away from the idea of India and asking for a separate nation for Muslims.

Yet Mr Jinnah began his political career with the Congress and until after World War I remained India's best "ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity". Biographer Stanley Wolpert says he was as "as enigmatic as Gandhi, more powerful than Nehru, and one of the most charismatic leaders and least known personalities". Historians like Patrick French believe that though Mr Jinnah "remained a secularist of sorts until his death, but also at times... willing to use communal antagonism in a strategic way."

Listen to Mr Jinnah before the formation of Pakistan, raising the spectre of Hindu majoritaranism: "We Muslims have got everything - brains, intelligence, capacity and courage- virtues that nations must possess. But two things are lacking, and I want you to concentrate your attention on these. One thing is that foreign domination from without and Hindu domination here, particularly on our economic life that has caused a certain degeneration of these virtues in us."

Or listen to him after a meeting with Egyptian and Palestinian Arab leaders in 1946: "I told them of the danger that a Hindu empire would represent for the Middle-East ... If a Hindu empire is achieved, it will mean the end of Islam in India, and even in other Muslim countries."

At the same time, it is true that Mr Jinnah felt short changed by the Congress. On 26 July 1946, Jinnah and his working committee spoke about Muslim India having "exhausted, without success, all efforts to find a peaceful solution of the Indian problem by compromise and constitutional means; and whereas the Congress is bent upon setting up Caste-Hindu Raj in India with the connivance of the British..."

In Mr Singh's book, Jawaharlal Nehru and the Congress emerge as some of the principal architects of the partition. He writes that the Congress "overestimated its strength, its influence, and its leaders were extremely reluctant to accept Jinnah as the leader of just not the Muslim League but eventually of most Muslims in India".

There is some truth in all this. But in trying to say that Mr Nehru and Congress were largely responsible for partition, Mr Singh is possibly ignoring the larger political realities of the time. Mr Jinnah positioned himself as the "sole spokesman of Pakistan", but his party Muslim League which led the Pakistan movement, won the last election in 1946 in British India with the number of Muslim voters at significantly no more than 10 to 12% of the total Muslim population in that year. As many historians say, the nation of Pakistan came into being "even before its mass base was established." The fault lines have widened since.

But to return to the original question, why did Mr Singh write this book? Does it have to do with his wider political ambitions? He is a self professed liberal in a party of hawks. In 1992, at the zenith of the BJP's rathyatra (motorised chariot) movement to whip up support for a temple at Ayodhya, Mr Singh did not attend a single function on the road. His induction into the cabinet in the late 1990s was vetoed once by the party's ideological fountainhead, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

With his mentor and BJP's only pan-Indian leader and former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee fading out and Mr Advani himself weakened by political defeat and party infighting, is Mr Singh trying to position himself as a liberal party leader-paterfamilias that Mr Vajpayee once occupied? It is difficult to say.

In a sense, one could argue, Mr Singh kills two birds with one stone with his revisionist take on the partition - as a senior leader of the main opposition party, he goes for the Congress's jugular by holding it responsible for the partition along with Mr Jinnah; and by heaping encomiums on Mr Jinnah, he endears himself to Indian Muslims, who have been lukewarm to the BJP's overtures. Is Mohammed Ali Jinnah a way for Mr Singh to reach out to Muslims and push his political ambitions in a party which appears to have lost its way in modern India? We will know in the days ahead.

India : Massive decline in sex ratio ! 1000 males : 880 females

Sex ratio in india has declined over the century from 972 in 1901 to 927 in 1991. The sex ratio has since gone up to 933 in 2001. In contrast, the child sex ratio for the age group of 0-6 years in 2001 is 927 girls per thousand boys against 945 recorded in 1991 Census. As far as worldwide sex ratio is concerned, it is 1.01 male (s)/females as in 2006.

Some of the reasons commonly put forward to explain the consistently low levels of sex ratio are son preference, neglect of the girl child resulting in higher mortality at younger age, female infanticide, female feticide, higher maternal mortality and male bias in emuneration of population. Easy availability of the sex determination test and abortion services may also be facilitating the process which may be further stimulated by pre-conception sex selection facilities.

Shame on you Danny Boyle ! Slumdog kids Still Live in Slums !

Grossing over $300 million and Critically-acclaimed film "Slumdog Millionaire" won 8 Oscars but film director Danny Boyle does nothing to get the two real slum kids out of the Mumbai Slums.

Watch the story :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30794430#30794430

It's becoming a crowded place, this planet of ours; six point seven billion of us now -- more than one billion in India alone. It’s a crush of humanity, perhaps no more evident than in Mumbai.

So imagine the improbability of two young children plucked from the squalor and obscurity of Asia's largest slum finding themselves walking the red carpet at the Academy Awards, basking in the glow of international adulation. And for the first time, people are catching an eye-opening, if sometimes artificial, glimpse of life outside the slums.

If it sounds like something out of a Hollywood movie, and well, of course, it is. It's the unlikely yet true tale of Rubina Ali and Azhar Ismail, the two child stars in the critically-acclaimed film "Slumdog Millionaire" who actually did come from the slums.

The film is the disturbing and ultimately uplifting story of a boy who rises from Mumbai's slums to be a winning contestant on an Indian game show.

Rubina played the childhood friend of the young hero, Azhar, his Wiley older brother.


"Slumdog" earned eight Oscars and has grossed more than $32o million at the box office.

The child stars were welcomed home from Hollywood as heroes, and it seemed that their lives would be forever changed, rags to riches.

But it hasn't quite turned out that way.

Today, Azhar and Rubina, both 10 years old, are back with their families in Mumbai's sprawling Bandra Slum.

With their dizzying Hollywood ride behind them, they have returned to a sadly familiar life in the shadow of a bustling railway station.

And people are wondering, how and why did they end up back here? A place steeped in the stench of garbage and sewage... where the crush of other humans strips away even simple privacy.

The heat is unrelieved.

In an effort to cool off, children dive into fetid pools strewn with waste between massive sewer pipes.

Earlier this month, we wound our way through a dark, narrow maze, webbed with electrical wires and laundry to find Azhar's house -- a cramped, makeshift hut. The home had tin walls, a plastic tarp for a roof.

Azhar was back to sleeping on a small home-made bed set on a dirt floor.

He's a typical kid. He watches cartoons on a rundown TV, rides a bike given to him by a fan. Dances, goofs around with friends, and once in a while goes out with them to buy candy.

And, as you might guess, he's a natural ham.

It was an uncle who took him to the casting call. Azhar thought, maybe I'll see a movie star.

Azhar (translated): I didn't have any acting experience. But I thought that if the movie happened, then I would meet some actors.

And he did! So, perhaps it wasn't so surprising that after the shoot, his expectations rose.

Azhar: I thought that after the shooting was done, I would become a movie star.

Azhar pulls out a crumbled “Slumdog” movie poster signed by film director Danny Boyle.

Azhar: Those people, Danny Boyle's people, they took care of us well. They did everything very nicely.

The money the parents say their children were paid didn't last long. They say Azhar got the equivalent of $2,400 dollars... Rubina just $710. The filmmakers say it was substantially more.

Whatever the case, in light of the film's success, the parents say it's not enough.

Azhar's father: So Danny Boyle should understand that these children earned him fame, awards and money. They were sold out for nothing!

From Azhar's hut, it's a three-minute walk thru a warren of decrepit shanties to Rubina's house. It's a sturdier building than Azhar's, but is prone to streams of sewage flooding its floors.

Unlike Azhar, Rubina is reserved, even shy. Mostly she stays in, plays games, hours on end, on her cell phone.

Rubina: There is filth, there are broken places. But I'm happy here.

Her days blend into one another, her life is much the same as so many others here.

The filmmakers say they've been working to improve the children's lives from the start.

During a news conference in February, director Danny Boyle said that even before the film became box-office gold, filmmakers had sent the kids to school and set up a fund called the Jai Ho trust.

Danny Boyle (at news conference): The two kids from the very poor backgrounds, we've put into school. Because they have never been to school before. It's amazing watching them grow now.

Boyle: Our plan is to keep them in school until they are 18 and when they reach 18 there's quite a large sum of money that will be released to them then.

We first caught wind of the kids back in the slums from footage shot by a Reader’s Digest reporter in March. Azhar's parents said Boyle had told them nothing about a trust fund, let alone how much money was in it.

Azhar's mother: I have no proof that money has been kept in a trust fund. If they have kept money for us, we should be told about it.

Since then, they say they've learned the trust will hold $50,000. But they have their doubts.

Mistrust is evident on both sides. The filmmakers say their concern is keeping the money safe for the children.

Boyle: If we give them a lot of money now you know, which the film could afford to give them, it won't do anything. It'll just vanish.


And the filmmakers recently announced a donation, $745,000, to Plan India, an organization that helps slum children in Mumbai.

Boyle and the movie's producers declined our requests for an interview, referring us to Noshir Dadrawala, one of the trustees recently assigned to manage the fund.

Noshir Dadrawala: To ensure that they do not drop out of school, we have set up a procedure whereby the monthly stipend and all that we give to them will depend upon their continuing their education.

He also says the trust is working with the families to provide better housing for them.

Dadrawala: These processes are still in the pipeline. The conceptualization has been done but the actual implementation will take its while.

But time just ran out for Azhar's family. A few days ago, local government officials demolished their hut and others around it. The unauthorized homes, they said, were built on land set aside for a public garden.

It's just the latest in a series of troubling events for the families since fame came their way, in part fueled by intense tabloid coverage.

One reported that Azhar's father kicked and slapped him.

Another set up a sting and claimed Rubina's father offered her up for adoption for about $280,000.

That sparked an ugly public fight between the girl's mother and stepmother. The father says he was set up and police have cleared him.

The Jai Ho trust has since hired a social worker to watch over Rubina and Azhar.

Dadrawala: We have seen pictures of Rubina crying in public and she was very traumatized and we felt that she needs this kind of help to help her emotionally and psychologically.

When it comes to the troubles that child actors often face, Paul Petersen has seen it all.

Paul Petersen: This is a repeat of of the historical reality behind hiring children off the street to participate in a business that can materially alter your life.

A young actor in the Donna Reid show back in the '50s, he's now the founder of a child star advocacy group called a Minor Consideration.

Paul Petersen: Life does not imitate art in this case. What they have done is thrown a wrench into lives that were quietly desperate and now are gonna make them very loud and desperate.

Peterson says the filmmakers failed to consider the predictable consequences of hiring kids who have no skills to cope with sudden fame, and who are now extremely vulnerable.

Keith Morrison, Dateline correspondent: Now that they've gotten them into this situation, is it their responsibility to make sure they're taken out of it?

Peterson: Excuse me, it's a $300 million picture. Get the family out of the slum. Give this child a chance. I'm telling you, there are a lot of people in this movie who have had a significant change of address. These children should, too.

But for the time being, the children are still in the slums, even with the best of intentions, their lives upended, futures uncertain, innocence gone.

Interview : Karachi Mayor Mustufa Kamal !

The Mayor of Karachi has transformed the city ! He leaves office on the 14th of August 2009.

KARACHI: As the fate of local governments across the country becomes uncertain, hyperactive Karachi Nazim Mustufa Kamal makes last-minute phone calls, meets delegations, signs documents and scolds his PA for not getting enough press coverage of his last days in office. Kamal’s tenure, which began in October 2005, is set to end sometime in August, a month before his four-year term was due to end.

Q. How do you feel about relinquishing charge as city nazim?

A. As far as my own conscience is concerned, it is clear and I’m very glad that whatever responsibility I had been given, I tried to fulfil it. I was able to see some visible changes in the life of the people of Karachi. There’s always some room for improvement and I won’t say that we’ve done everything right or that there has been 100 per cent achievements. But then in the shortest period of time and within limited resources, whatever could have been done, we’ve tried to achieve. Whoever comes after me, I wish him/her all the best. I wish that he/she makes the city more viable than what it is today.

Q. Why did you impose taxes on the people of Karachi at the end of your tenure?

A. Exactly, why did I have to launch this taxation system in the fourth year of my tenure, especially when I had accomplished everything? I know if I ask money from people, no one is going to be happy about it. But I did it because I take ownership of this city. The idea was that I have spent Rs 200 billion on developing the city’s infrastructure, which was not Mustafa Kamal’s or the MQM’s money. It was people’s money. Now, all this development needs maintenance. I know the condition of the provincial and federal government, who have stopped our funds. And I know that if you don’t repair and put money into maintenance, all these projects will go down the drain. Billions of rupees worth of projects will be destroyed and after five or 10 years, a new nazim will come and have to start all over again. Do we want that to happen?

Q. Why did the garbage collection project backed by Chinese investment fail?

A. My project didn’t fail. We’re still working on it. Who had conceived of Chinese involvement? I was the one who brought them on board. Before that, we had purchased Rs 700 million worth of machinery, which was a first-time in the history of Karachi. The Chinese were supposed to invest $400 million for the establishment of their Garbage Transferring System (GTS), but they didn’t do that because of the country’s poor economic and political condition. I’m helpless in that. In a scenario where your own people are taking their dollars out of the country, how can you expect anyone to come in and invest here? So, I have not failed in this project. Our country’s external factors have been hampering it, but it is to our credit that even then the project has not been abolished and we’re still in talks with [the Chinese investors].

Q. What happened to the mass transit system for Karachi?

A. The mass transit system and circular railways comes under the federal government. We made the plan, provided case studies, and did everything from our side, but the bottleneck was there. Even the number of buses for the mass transit system was cut down from 8,000 to 4, 000. Rs 2.5 billion was supposed to be set aside for it, but nothing took place. We did our part of the job but I cannot go and sit in Islamabad and fight on the behalf of the provincial or federal minister or the prime minister or the federal secretary.

Q. Please explain the decision to launch 50 CNG buses in the last days of your tenure.

A. It is a very small step, but it was what we could manage. At least we have created a model here. Instead of just waiting for Islamabad to come and fund us, we have dedicated CNG buses with an e-ticketing system. I know we need thousands of such buses. But what can we do? Everywhere in the world, mass transit is handled by the federal government of that country.

Q. Why did you approach the high court against the Sindh chief minister’s notification?

A. I filed the petition against one of the notifications which stated that the city government could not sell or buy property. We were in the phase of many transactions and that notification had stopped everything. Now, as the mayor of the city, I should have all the rights, otherwise they should just take me off this seat.Whenever there’s a dispute between any two organisations, you go to a third organisation to resolve the dispute. So I approached the high court to resolve the issue.

Q. What flaws did you come across in the local government system during your tenure?

A. The biggest flaw is that enforcement is not there. A person sitting on my seat will remain paralysed if city and traffic police is not placed under the nazim’s control. Also, the entire land of the city should come under the jurisdiction of the city government and not the provincial government. Presently, one has to buy land from the provincial government for any development project. The biggest dichotomy is that the provincial government doesn’t mind if the land is being encroached, but it won’t give it to the CDGK. Lastly, there are 13 different agencies operating in Karachi. I’ve been saying for a long time that unity of command is a must.

Q. What were the low points of your tenure?

A. I come across 10 frustrating points every day, so I can’t name just one. For example, there’s the halt of CDGK funds by the government, encroachment of city government land, and police indifference. It is very frustrating when encroachers in some areas do not let me do my job while the police just stand there. I also get frustrated when I see that people are violating traffic rules on my own constructed flyovers and bridges.

Q. What do you term as your best achievement?

A. Although I would like to leave that for the people to decide, I will say that my favourite project has been 1339, the complaint management system. Although it remains invisible, it’s a system that has provided a voice to the people of Karachi. Today, it’s even ISO certified. I’m really proud of it.

Q. What was the most difficult project for you to undertake?

A. Apart from the mass transit system, the 40-year-old Preedy Street project was also very difficult. Around 85 houses with 1,100 inhabitants had to be demolished. Most of them were supporters of the MQM. They didn’t say a word and let us demolish their houses. That was really difficult for me to do.

Q. Has your work affected your family life?

A. My family life has totally deteriorated… they have forgotten me. They don’t make any plans while keeping me in mind.

Q. Would you want to become the mayor of Karachi again?

A. I would beg my party not to do that. I’ll beg. Trust me, I mean it. This was like an exam for me. It was a huge responsibility and it hasn’t been a bed of roses for me. In my student life, I would always feel inner happiness when the exams came to an end. So just imagine that on your last paper somebody comes in and tells you that look you have a new exam tomorrow. How would you feel?

Q. What do you plan to do once you leave office?

A. I’m a worker of the MQM and I will continue to be a worker of the party. The party has its own philosophy. It’s not about becoming a nazim or an MPA or MNA or governor. I have tried to market MQM’s philosophy through my work. Now if I have done that well, people will realise that if it’s good for Karachi then it’s good for everybody in Pakistan.