THERE is a good reason why I have taken so much of the space provided to me every week by this newspaper to write about a subject that seems very distant from the minds of the Pakistani policymakers as they begin to settle down in their new quarters in Islamabad. There is no reason why the new generation of politicians who are assuming power in Pakistan’s capital and the country’s four provinces should worry about the millennium development goals — a subject about which I have written over the last two weeks.

In this article I hope to demonstrate that the choice of that subject was not as idiosyncratic as may have appeared to some of the readers. Even those who are not impressed with recent political developments in Pakistan and are sceptical about the scope of change that is occurring since the elections of October 10 must recognize that it is not business as usual in Islamabad. With a parliament in place and a new prime minister and his cabinet having taken office nobody can argue that nothing of significance has happened in the country.

Politicians are back in Islamabad and in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta. Only time will tell as to how much power they really possess and how much authority they will be allowed to exercise. We will certainly need more time to see as to how much space for decision-making was actually vacated by the military leadership following the induction of new legislatures in Islamabad and in the four provinces.

And only time will tell whether the new policymakers in Islamabad are likely to show some recognition of the fact that the world has changed quite significantly since they last walked the corridors of power in Islamabad and the four provincial capitals. It is this last point that I wish to underscore in this article. I will also suggest that the new political system’s longevity will depend on part on how well its operators understand the circumstances that Pakistan must confront in the fast changing global environment.

The world changed for a country in Pakistan’s situation not only after the terrorists struck America on September 11, 2001. It had begun to change profoundly following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of European communism some ten years earlier. America then became the undisputed superpower, no longer under any compulsion to be restrained to use the power it possessed. It was now the world’s most powerful state, not only militarily but in other fields as well — in economics and in arts and culture as well.

Even if Al Qaeda had not provoked the attacks on New York and Washington, Pakistan would be living in a world different from the one in which Washington did not have such a dominant position. What 9/11 did was to persuade America to take off its gloves in dealing with the countries around the globe — not just developing countries but all countries, no matter what was their level of development.

That the United States is no longer in the mood to soften its dealings with the world to accommodate the imperatives of diplomacy is quite apparent from a series of positions it has taken on a number of important issues. Even before 9/11, the Bush administration had adopted a go-it-alone approach in international affairs.

It refused to honour, for instance, the commitment made by President Bill Clinton on tackling environmental degradation and global warming. Washington refused to sign on the Kyoto protocol that had been negotiated earlier by the Clinton team. Since September 11, 2001, however, the American stance in international relations has become even more strident. This is now evident from the way Washington is dealing with countries around the globe and various political leaders.

If the German chancellor questions American policy with regard to Iraq, he is put out in the cold until the time he changes his tune. If the European Union chooses to tread cautiously in laying down the roadmap for bringing in Turkey into its fold, the United States lets it be known in clear terms that it is not happy with the adopted approach.

If the Palestinian authority does not follow the line laid down by Washington, America calls for the removal of Yasser Arafat even though he had been democratically elected. Protests by other leaders of the Middle East did not sway Washington. If Yemen buys missiles from North Korea and has them shipped to its ports, the United States allows the boarding of the vessel carrying the weapons while it is still in international waters.

That Washington was, at times, prepared to defy international law to exert its will did not come as a surprise to those who had come to expect the Americans to place their national interest above other considerations. There are many more examples of the roughness that has entered America’s dealings and discourse with the world beyond its borders. The new American mood was well reflected in a speech given recently by the country’s Attorney General, John D. Ashcroft. He was addressing a conference of US attorneys, some of whom had been critical of him for showing inadequate respect for civil liberties since September 11, 2001. The attorney general lamented that while “our actions are firmly rooted in the Constitution, they have nevertheless been met in some quarters with disdain and ridicule.” He then followed with a revealing thought: “History instructs us that caution and complacency are not defences of freedom: caution and complacency are a capitulation before freedom’s enemies — the terrorists”. If this statement represents the way America will approach the world in the future then we can expect an activist role aimed at achieving its own goals.

The Ashcroft statement was given in the context of ‘homeland security’ and in this matter Washington, for obvious reasons, is proceeding on its own. But on other issues it has the company of other rich nations. One such issue is the way developed world is willing to allow the flow of funds from their budgets to poor countries. A new set of considerations will guide the movement of this type of financial flow. These considerations divide the world into four parts.

The first set of countries belongs to the category of failing states. This is the reason why, Washington, Tokyo and Berlin will continue to provide fairly generous amounts of development assistance to Afghanistan even though the country has still to demonstrate its ability to effectively use them. The West is aware that Al Qaeda and associated terrorist organizations, rendered footloose by the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, are actively searching for a new safe haven. Failing states provide such sanctuaries. The rich nations have come to the realization that they will not let nation states fail, no matter how small and insignificant they may be.

And, then there are countries of significant strategic interest for the world’s rich nations with whom active and cordial relations must be maintained. Large courtiers such as Brazil, China, Nigeria and South Africa fall into this category. In terms of the size of their populations, some of these “large” countries are smaller than Pakistan. But they are important for the regions in which they are located.

That these strategic reasons are strong motives for Washington’s approach to the developing world is very well demonstrated by its dealings with Argentina and Brazil. Argentina is neither large enough nor is its location in a strategically sensitive area for it to have commanded much interest in Washington as its economy began to falter several months ago. In fact, Argentina was thrown to the mercy of the markets as a test of the resolve of the Bush administration not to rescue countries in economic distress.

Pakistan, Indonesia, most countries of Central Asia and Turkey belong to the third category of countries that are of interest to the West — in particular to Washington — because of their location in the Muslim world. They will remain on the West’s radar screens for as long as the war against terrorism continues to be associated with radical Islam or for as long as the forces that have decided to attack America and its friends in the West are not overpowered. It is hard to tell at this point what will happen to this group of countries if America does attack Iraq.

The fourth category — the only one for which strict economic criteria will be applied in directing official assistance — includes the nations that meet the expectations of the donor community in terms of addressing the problems of economic backwardness. An important part of this expectation is that the policymakers in the developing world will endeavour to achieve three sets of objectives very dear to the capital exporting countries: democracy, good governance and pursuit of policies aimed at achieving millennium development targets. Only those countries will be rewarded with large amounts of development assistance that meet these expectations.

That this approach has some significance for capital-deficit countries such as Pakistan is revealed by the decision taken recently by the United States to establish a new agency, the Millennium Development Corporation. The MDC will administer a new five billion dollars US aid programme under which the world’s poor countries will compete for funds.

The proposal to set up the new agency, which will go to the US Congress early next year, marks a major shift in how the government will provide assistance to developing countries. It will boost the foreign budget of the United States by 50 per cent within three years and give authority over the new money to an organization different and separate from the traditional channels: the State Department and the US Agency for International Development. Under the plan, the US aid programme will increase from $10 billion this year to $15 billion in 2006.

The countries eligible for receiving funds from the new entity will be ranked by a number of indices indicating how well they are governed, how they attend to their economies and how well they look after their people. The agency will rely on the data and information gathered by a number of agencies, including the UNDP, the World Bank and the Heritage Foundation. The record of the countries in achieving the Millennium Development Goals will be an important part of this assessment.

The implication for all these developments is obvious for Pakistan. Islamabad will continue to remain an important destination for western and Japanese foreign assistance for as long as its contribution to the war on terrorism is considered to be important. Once it loses this strategic role, it will have to win favour by showing that it is managing its economy well and meeting the needs of its people. That is the reason why the new policymakers in Islamabad must begin to pay heed to the country’s record in meeting the Millennium Development goals.

IT is now official. Pakistan nationals visiting the United States must register with the Immigration and Naturalization Services. They will also be finger-printed and photographed.

While the Pakistan Embassy in Washington DC says it is sending a very strong demarche to the justice and state departments. It has advised Pakistani visitors to follow instructions. “While in the United States, they have to follow the law of the land,” the Embassy says in a statement of the obvious.

On the face of it, every country has the sovereign right to frame its own laws and regulate visitors. But this new regulation is terrorism-specific and only those countries have been targeted whose nationals are considered high risks. It so happens that all the selective countries happen to be Muslim countries, with the exception of North Korea. Just to show that the INS is being even-handed, Saudi Arabia too is included in the list.

It would appear that the US government makes a distinction between governments and people. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are allies of the United States in the war on terror but the nationals of the two countries are suspect. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) had rallied his people by declaring in a firm voice that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.” This was after Pearl Harbour.

Now it would seem, the American people are being encouraged to fear terrorism, the equivalent of staying indoors and keeping the door bolted. I have always believed that security must be done but not seen to be done. The avowed aim of the terrorist is to spread terror. Why enter into a paroxysm of paranoia and tell him that he is succeeding?

The world’s sole superpower that prides itself on its civil liberties and human rights, whose ideological instincts are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and, in its own estimation, is the envy of the rest of the world, should be seen as leading the war on terror by reaffirming its ideals, not putting them on hold. the American people themselves are the best judge of how best to combat the terrorist threat. But they need to do some soul-searching on why so much of the moral high ground they held after 9/11 has been lost. And, if they do not believe that some of this moral high ground has been lost, then they are poorly informed.

My mind goes back many years, to the coming into being of the People’s Republic of China. For years, China was systematically slandered and the American media went into high-drive, churning out lies and half-truths, accentuating all the negatives, a regimented, Godless society of blue ants and the imminent collapse of Mao’s regime was being forecast on a daily basis. I had visited China in 1956.

The China I saw bore no resemblance to the China I had read about in the American media. I had, however been fortified because I had read Edgar Snow’s Red Star Over China. Later, I read Felix Greene’s book A Curtain of Ignorance. Felix Greene was no communist, not even a fellow-traveller. His book was a documented, point by point, refutation of the news reports that had appeared in such prestigious newspapers and magazine as New York Times and Time magazine.

But the slander continued. In the end, it all amounted to nothing. Propaganda may have its use in times of war, though not half as much as is imagined. It is the reality on the ground that matters.

The role that the Western media is playing in these unenlightened times is dubious, to say the least. The perception that the US is the object of envy and resentment is widely held in the United States and this explains the widespread anti-Americanism. This is a myth that has been created by the media. If there is anti-Americanism, it is not directed at the American people who are seen as kind and generous. It is directed at American policies, particularly in the Middle East.

Thus it is the “Middle East” types, which includes Pakistanis, who are being bracketed with terrorists. But there is a fair amount of anti-Americanism in Latin America and the slogan “Yankee Go Home” emanated in that part of the world. Castro is now taking a back seat but he too has been demonised and it is public record that the CIA was a party to several attempts to assassinate him, the CIA acting in tandem with mobsters. Seymour Hersh’s The Dark Side of Camelot tells in vivid details of John F. Kennedy’s obsession with Castro.

Ferreting out terrorist cells is something that may be necessary in the war on terror. Good intelligence does not mean that you go about it like a bull in a China shop, like a scene from NYPD Blue. Profiling Muslims as potential terrorists is worse than McCarthyism. There seems to be no reason why the views of the lunatic-fringe should prevail or that the entire Muslim world should be alienated in order to satisfy the territorial designs of Israel, as well as the blood-thirst of Ariel Sharon and his gang.

GEORGE BUSH has threatened Iraq and other ‘rogue states’ and terrorist organizations to use nuclear weapons against them if they attacked the interests of the US and its allies. It sure is the reiteration of the massive retaliation doctrine of the cold war days.

The doctrine was conceived in the wake of the Korean war by Dean Acheson, then US secretary of state, and proclaimed later by the cold war warrior, John Foster Dulles. Then international communism was the declared enemy like Al Qaeda is today.

The aim of the massive retaliation theory was to nip any Soviet or Chinese aggression or foreign-inspired subversion in the bud. When spelled out, the doctrine meant that in the event of aggression or subversion in any part of the non-communist world, the United States would retaliate with its full strength, including the nuclear weapons. The doctrine was as dangerous as it was impracticable and suicidal but the American war mongers clung to it throughout the 1950s. It was a disproportionate response to local insurgency and could escalate into an all-out nuclear war between the Nato and Warsaw power blocs.

But the doctrine was invalidated by a series of developments since the Korean war such as the cross-border firing between the US naval fleet and the mainland China over the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu; the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956; the French defeat by Ho Chi Minh’s communist forces at Dien Bien Phu in Indo-China in 1956; and the communist insurgency in Laos in 1960.

The impotence of this blanket doctrine was exposed when the US high command could not use nuclear weapons in all the above-mentioned conflicts. The dismissal of General MacArthur by President Truman during the Korean war dealt a death blow to the sterile massive retaliation theory. The war-minded American general was unceremoniously dismissed because he was going to bomb the Yalu river project in China, an adventure that would have precipitated the Third World War. It was during the ascendancy of this doctrine that Indo-China fell prey to communism while Cuba passed under communist rule.

Until the advent of the Kennedy administration this doctrine of massive retaliation or pre-emption was rejected in favour of a more pragmatic strategy of flexible response or graduated deterrence, meaning that the response should be proportionate to the threat. It seems that the Bush administration has returned to the massive retaliation strategy to destroy and deter the ubiquitous Al Qaeda. Applied to the contemporary scenario in Iraq and the Islamic world, the doctrine would mean that in case of any militant attack on the forces of the United States or its allies, say, Israel and Britain, America may hit back with a nuclear fist.

Here the question arises whom would America attack if its invading forces in the region or its oil installations are targeted by unidentifiable militants? Unlike the standing armies and navies, guerillas operate singly or in small groups and melt away after the completion of their mission. Would the US army be then engaged in an endless wild goose chase as in the case of the long hunt for Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda operatives?

George Bush has not made secret of his agenda, that is, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his replacement by a puppet regime, which would let Washington grab Iraq’s twelve-billion-barrel oil reserves. The disarming of Iraq is therefore not the object but the pretext for a US invasion. It falls outside the ambit of the latest Security Council resolution on Iraq’s disarmament.

The insistence of George Bush that Iraq possesses nuclear and other deadly weapons which pose a threat to the US and its ally, Israel, despite Hans Blix’s contention that such weapons have not so far been found there only shows his isolation from the mainstream of world opinion.

There is a marked difference between the agenda of the Security Council and that of George Bush. And the American President has left in no doubt that he might bypass the council and attack Iraq. This would be in flagrant breach of the UN Charter. This is why the former US President and elder statesman, Jimmy Carter, has advised him to let the Security Council take whatever action it may deem fit. For an attack on Iraq would be detrimental to the peace in the region, especially when the American president has threatened to use nuclear weapons against militants.

Clearly, the Bush administration suffers from the paranoia of the cold war days and suspects even its closest allies such as the Saudi monarchy and Musharraf government of not doing enough against Al Qaeda. It sees Al Qaeda’s hand in the bomb blasts in Mombasa, Bali, Nairobi, Dar-es-Salam, Al Khobar and all over the world. The Bush administration has embarked on a massive witch-hunt at home and abroad, forcing allies to pass draconian laws to curb Islamic militants, numbering, according to Washington, eighty thousand spread across the globe.

If this is so, would it be possible for the US to use atomic, chemical and biological weapons against them without killing millions of people living in the Afro-Asian countries? Are the American, British and Israeli forces large enough to go after them in every nook and corner of the world? Have the Pentagon hawks assessed the resultant loss of life and degradation of environment if they used nuclear weapons and poison gas against Iraq? Wouldn’t Jordan, Turkey, Iran and even Israel suffer from the radioactive fallout? In that case wouldn’t the interests of the US and its allies be endangered by the use of its own WMD? Do they want to wipe out Iraq from the face of the earth?

Before using the genocidal weapons the US administration should know that these are prohibited by the 1949 Geneva Convention. Therefore, if any country uses them it would be guilty of war crimes and crime against humanity.

Under the UN Charter, it is obligatory for the Council to take immediate cognizance of the situation which, doubtless, endangers international peace. Regrettably, though, the Council has failed to restrain the US from its aggressive moves, now that it threatens the smaller nations with nuclear holocaust.

THE question I am frequently asked is, “Are there some subjects so sensitive that you can’t make fun of them?”

Yes, there are. A major one is the question of allowing women members into the Augusta National Golf Club. The issue is a religious one, since it has to do with the beliefs of those who play golf and those who play God.

The male members of the club believe it is a mortal sin to allow women to play golf on their heavenly turf, and those females trying to break down the rules are infidels.

It would probably not be an earthshaking matter except that the Masters, the most important golf tournament in our culture, is played at Augusta and shown on television by CBS around the world.

The Augusta members maintain that a club is a club is a club, and if they decide not to have women, it’s God’s will.

One member, who would not speak on the record, said, “We have nothing against the other sex. Some of our best friends are women. But our club is a male sanctuary. It is a place where we can tell off-colour stories, lie about our golf game, and play gin rummy without some female looking over our shoulders.”

He continued, “That is why every time before we tee off we say a prayer, thanking the Lord for letting us mix with our own kind.”

On the other side, NOW, the National Organization for Women, says, “Augusta is more than a men’s club — it’s a national institution and is brought into millions of people’s homes by television. The Masters Tournament sells soap, life insurance, golf balls, beer and after-shave lotion.

“If CBS wants us to buy all the things they advertise, then it can’t be a private club.”

Added into the mix is the pressure by women on professional golfers. The golfer getting the most flack is Tiger Woods, because he is part African-American, and the women are telling him he should not play. So far Woods says he doesn’t want to be involved.

The NOW lady said, “Tiger does not know that women buy American Express Travellers Checks as often as men do. And that is what Tiger is now selling.”

One of the troubles with allowing women into a golf club is that since there is so much divorce going on there is a question as to who gets the club membership when the breakup becomes legal. Everyone knows you can’t allow the ex-wife and the new wife into the same clubhouse.

I dealt with the matter some time ago in regards to tennis players. I said the winner gets the membership.

The same thing could go for golfers. The new wife and the ex would play a sudden-death match.

The winner would order margaritas and the loser would have to throw her putter into the lake.

Having said all this, you can understand why the August National Club controversy is too sensitive for me to write about. No matter which side I take, the editor would probably spike the column.—Dawn/Tribune Media Services

THE North Koreans really don not get it, do they? It seems that some of them, along with associate liberals in Seoul, are protesting against the latest James Bond movie, Die Another Day. I am afraid to point out that the North Koreans cannot see a compliment when they get one.

Before anyone threatens torture, I have a confession to make. I fell onto the bedroom sofa the other day, with a heavy viral cold oozing out of every orifice of the body. When all your senses have turned into a gooey jelly, what do you do? Turn on television, of course. The first channel that I could see through my unemotional tears was telecasting of a pirated version of the latest Bond film. The sound was a bit incoherent (unless my ears were also blocked), which was a pity, since some of the dialogue in any Bond movie is classy, particularly if its spirit is borrowed from Ian Fleming. Now, even the spirit of an authentic genius like Fleming is not so expansive as to stretch into twenty movies, each block a bigger buster than before. So clearly some additional spiritual sustenance is required. The makers of the Bond films are more intelligent than they let on. They build on Fleming, in much the way that Fleming built on his own experiences in war-time intelligence work. They decorate the original with the icing of a post-modern imagination; they do not abandon it.

For instance, in deference to gender equality, M, the crusty admiral who was Bond’s chief, has sex-morphed into a woman, although in all fairness I must admit that Dame Judi Dench looks as close to a man as a woman can get. I do not think that this compromise would have appeased Ian Fleming, but since he is dead, we cannot consult him on the matter. In an even more startling transformation, Bond’s salty weapons instructor and exotic-gadget provider, Q, has been converted into John Cleese. To convert a man into a woman is one thing; but to convert a man into John Cleese is totally wild. It is post-post-modern.

Since I am into this heavy confessional mode, I will admit that I did not see Q in this particular pirated version, as I caught only the end, but I did see M; and I am glad to report that a sentence that has appeared in every Bond movie is still around (“Any news from James yet?” asks M, as in some faraway land the hero is battling to save his life and the world the two, naturally, are synonymous). Almost everything one needed to know about Die Another Day was there at the time of near-death. A sparkling-teeth villain who found his father unworthy of real hatred against the enemy. A missile frozen midair. Life teetering against death, on a wide-bodied airliner, and this time as a tandem show: Bond vs Cruelly Handsome Villain, and Halle Berry vs Cruelly Luscious Korean (could this be a WWF derivative?). Halle Berry survives fair and square; James, with his traditional bit of last-minute luck. World is saved. Bye, and thanks for your money.

So why are the North Koreans upset? If I were a North Korean, I would deem it an honour to be considered powerful enough to take on the combined forces of the western world, and then work them up into such a sweat that they had to send for James Bond. It is not easy to wind the superpowers to such a degree that they have to throw in their last resource.

Once upon a time, when the cold war was young and the British still powerful, only the Soviet Union was considered a foe worthy of Bond’s talents. From Russia With Love is my preferred classic, and full marks to the hard Soviet spymistress Rosa who almost got James with her poisoned heels. In other adventures, seemingly freelance world-conquerors, like Hugo Drax in Moonraker, were really controlled by SMERSH, the Soviet organisation created to destroy the West.

Ian Fleming died when the Soviet Union was still able to chill the heart of an Englishman. But as Soviet power began to ebb, the inheritors of the Bond saga needed fresh catchment points for the enemy. Once the Russians became subsistence seekers from the World Bank they could hardly also simultaneously finance Goldfinger. (It may be a coincidence, but Goldfinger’s hatchet man, Oddjob, was a Korean.) An attempt was made to find sufficient villainy in China, but it petered out. China does not quite fit the bill for Bond. It is true that China wants mastery of the world, but it wants to do so by mass-producing discount-price teddy bears in sweat shops.

James Bond cannot have a life-and-death struggle with someone stuffing teddy bears. Non-national villains, who were also tried, did not have lasting power. There is no substitute for state power. Bond represents Her Majesty’s government and Her Majesty’s Uncle Sam. It does not seem quite equal if all he has to do is test wills against someone who represents three fourths of iron ore on the globe.

You see the point, don’t you. You have to be a world-class superpower to frighten western civilization into summoning James Bond. How many nations can lay claim to such status? This latest Bond is therefore a tribute to North Korea. Hollywood has acknowledged its world-class superpower capabilities.

As an Indian I feel hard done by. Why has India never been considered worthy of taking on the might of the western powers? Hollywood refuses to take India seriously despite the fact that we have been a nuclear power for twenty years, and one really wonders what more we have to do to enter the script. I mean, I want to be invaded by Halle Berry too. India’s diamonds are not bad either: they would glitter beautifully in that navel.

The only time James Bond came to India, early in the nineties, in the shape of Roger Moore, he was defeated by an autorickshaw in Udaipur. Disaster on both sides. Bond, because he lost his quip. India, because an imbalanced three-wheeler hurtling past cows through narrow streets became the prevailing symbol of modern Indian technology.

It could be an image problem. It is possible that the Indian looks too friendly, or occasionally too greasy, to be a fiend. Our role-model villains belong to the Narada school of double-speak, rather than the master-race types. Moreover, our villains would ideally destroy what we cherish most, which is the joint family. The world is too far for us. (Does that sound like the title of a Bond movie? A title does not have to actually mean anything; it only has to sound like a haiku written by someone who does not know Japanese.) Bond’s villains are exceptional scientists who have dedicated their lives to a single purpose, which if it succeeds will shatter the earth, obviously literally.

Indian villains, on the other hand, fantasize about shattering the peace between sisters-in-law. This is what makes them ideal material for television soaps, which is not quite the kind of epic Scaramanga or Dr No would prefer to interfere with. One does not want to get judgmental. The grand and spectacular Moonraker rocket may in fact be less complicated to construct than a subtle and careful quarrel between relatives ogling the dividends in a family business. I was faintly heartened when the villain-son killed the villain-father in Die Another Day.

This seemed more like the sort of thing that would work on soap. But the guy went back to normal after he had electrocuted his father. There was no remorse. Without remorse you cannot carry the plot forward to the next episode.

It is also true that when we Indians do try and create an ogre of Bondian proportions, we make a terrible mess of it. Mogambo would be laughed out of the hall at any serious conference of world destroyers, unless someone hired him as a court jester. Hollywood could easily be deterred from basing the next Bond film in India by the thought that it might have to offer Amresh Puri the chance to demolish the known world. India’s loss has been North Korea’s gain.

Now that my cold has improved a bit, I cannot help wondering what the North Koreans are actually protesting about. Do they think WTO will never let them in because they were so villainous in a Bond movie? Or that large parts of Sudan, which never suspected them of having nuclear weapons, will now break relations with Pyongyang? Relax, pal. It is fun. And it is better to be a villain than to be ignored. Ask me. I am an Indian.

The writer is chief editor of Asian Age, New Delhi