[DEBATE] : INDIA: Congress, BJP, and RSS

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

<http://www.tehelka.com/story_main39.asp?filename=Ne310508cover_story.asp>
>From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 21, Dated May 31, 2008
CURRENT AFFAIRS 	  	

'My vision is to get 85 percent of India into cities'

As India's Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram must unravel some of the
most complex riddles of our time. In an unusually candid interview, he
spells out his committed, but debatable, vision to SHANTANU GUHA
RAY(SGR) and SHOMA CHAUDHURY(SC)

A long wait in an ante-room and then the summons. A neat man in
meticulous white at the far end of a football field-size room. In a
stellar career, P. Chidambaram, 62, has gone from being a left-wing
trade unionist to Finance Minister, driving a globalised new economy.
Inevitably, he's in the crosshair of every major argument about the
future of India. Certain of his vision, contemptuous of doubting
socialist romantics, in an hour-long interview he spoke less numbers,
more vision, with combative eloquence

SGR: Let's start with what's top of mind. Inflation. Wholesale
inflation just hit a whopping 7.83 percent. Given that the tolerance
level for inflation has come down in India from a time when people
were willing to tolerate 8-10 percent inflation, does this put your
government on notice?

I've said this many times in the past. In the 70s and 80s average
inflation was well over 8 percent, in the 50s and 60s it was even
higher but since the 90s the tolerance level of inflation has come
down drastically. Since the turn of this century, I think tolerance
level of inflation is only between 4 to 5 percent. Therefore when the
headline inflation number goes beyond 5 percent there is resentment
and naturally political parties seize the opportunity to feed this
resentment. We are doing everything to control the situation, but I
don't think it will have too adverse an impact on our government

SGR: What about growth? The International Monetary Fund recently said
the Indian economy stands at an increased risk of overheating. Do you
think there could be a backlash against fast growth in India?

What is overheating? Overheating is when you have a situation where
demand is far in excess of capacity. You can have overheated segments
of an economy, but I do not think, in India, that demand across the
board is in excess of capacity. For example, there is a demand for
steel but we also export steel. The same for cement and rice. In some
markets, yes, there is very high demand and some bubbles have built
up, for example, in the real estate market and may be, to some extent,
in the equity market. But to say the Indian economy is overheated is
something I don't agree with. I think there is still capacity for our
economy to grow at a higher rate. The consequence of arguing that the
Indian economy is overheated is to slow down the growth rate. And that
would be disastrous for India.

SC: In one of your budget speeches you spoke about a triad of
concerns: growth, equity and social justice. The first is being
globally celebrated. Do the other two give you moments of disquiet?

Everything is relative. The UPA government did not invent poverty nor
can you say that pre-2004 this was a land of milk and honey and
poverty has hit us only today. We have had poverty for 5000 years. We
have had children out of schools for 50 years, infant mortality for
hundreds of years. The point is, have our policies made a dent in
these poverty indicators? Clearly, things are better. Per capita
incomes have risen, fewer children are out of school, drop-out ratios
are declining, even if slowly. More jobs are being created. In that
sense, our policies are clearly progrowth and pro-equity. But if the
question is, have we reached a point where we can say we are satisfied
with the pace of inclusive growth, my answer candidly is, no. Our
growth is at an impressive rate, but the pace of inclusiveness of that
growth is at a very tiny rate. If we had a better system of
administration, a better system of reaching benefits to the poor,
greater accountability — we could have reached the benefits of this
growth to a much larger number.

Let me give you just one example: the PDS. On an average, we have put
70-lakh tonnes more food grain into the PDS after 2004, compared to
previous years. This should've taken the PDS to a larger target group
but, on the contrary, due to high rate of leakage which is stubbornly
stuck at 35-36 percent, the perception is that the PDS is a broken
system, and people are more resentful of it.

SC: When you have undertaken such massive innovation with the economy
— dismantling the socialist regime, dismantling an entire way of
thinking — aren't there real innovations you can undertake to improve
these sectors?

Of course, we can. In my first budget I said, we must move over to a
smart-card based PDS system. There were no takers. I have only just
found two takers — Haryana and Chandigarh. The progress is at a
glacial pace but at least it's a beginning. Very early on, I also said
the fertiliser subsidy must be given directly to the farmer. Even
today, the Ministry of Fertilisers does not buy that idea. Therefore,
while some very remarkable changes could have been brought about in
the manner in which we distribute subsidies and the manner in which we
reach direct benefits to the poor, since we are unable to get people
to agree to change we are continuing with a broken system.

SC: What is this resistance based on?

Well, a new system is always threatening. It may succeed, it may fail.
In fact, some very sincere people oppose it out of fear of failure —
what if fertilisers don't reach the farmer, what if there is a crisis
in the distribution, we will have a famine in this country. But the
real block is that basically everybody is loath to lose patronage. And
I am not necessarily using the word patronage in a pejorative sense.
There can be patronage without any element of corruption or
malfeasance, but because people don't want to lose patronage is why
you continue with old systems.

SGR: The Prime Minister has been talking about crony capitalism. You
also prodded corporates recently to absorb one lakh disabled people in
return for big incentives. Why should governments foot the cost of
corporate social responsibility, for things that should normally
happen?

Where is it ever normally done? US business did not give contracts to
blacks, nor employ blacks for many, many years. You heard chairperson
of the Central Bank, Ms Daruwalla, on television yesterday when she
said that in 1972 she was turned down by every business house —
including some Parsi ones, notwithstanding the fact that she is a
Parsi — who told her that you are very qualified but we would prefer a
male. So it's never normally done. People normally do not employ
disabled people. We have to woo them, and that is why we've offered to
pick up the tab for ESI and EPF for three years if corporates employ a
differently abled person

SC: But the question runs deeper. The perception today is that
government policies are entirely skewed towards corporate growth. At a
time when social spends have dropped, why are there so many sops for
corporates?

If all this is about creating free, competitive markets, why SEZs, tax
holidays, subsidised land taken over from people under the Land
Acquistion Act? In fact, to correct you, we are not reducing social
spending. The numbers show we have sharply increased our social
expenditure.

SC: Maybe as compared to the BJP but not...

No, not correct. Education, health, drinking water, sanitation — the
amount that is spent today on all this was never spent at any time in
India's history. At the same time, you have mentioned SEZs. Now I am
reluctant to reply to that because I am bound by government policy.

SC: China has just six SEZs. But our Board of Control cleared more
than 200 SEZs in its first sitting. I know that privately you...

It doesn't matter what I think. We are not talking off the record, and
I am reluctant to talk about it because I am bound by government
policy. There is some consternation about the way the policy is
operating. An empowered group of ministers has been asked to look into
it. It's taking more time than I would have liked, but hopefully some
of the concerns expressed will be addressed.

SC: India's opportunity for growth has come at a time when we can
learn from the mistakes of other societies, when we are privy to new
ways of thinking on environment, climate change etc. Must we insist on
the same model of growth, make the same mistakes? Can't our roadmap be
different?

To an extent, but let's not be overawed by the arguments of the
developed countries that we should factor in many of the new ideas and
concepts which they did not factor in when they were growing. Our
emission is among the lowest in the world. If you accept that there is
equality amongst human beings...

SC: But it is lowest because we aren't at the peak of our
industralisation curve.

See, we have made an offer that our per capita emission will be lower
than that of the developed countries. In fact, we have challenged
developed countries to lower their per capita emission with a promise
that we will remain even lower. If you accept the fact that all human
beings are equal, and are entitled to emit equal amounts — our per
capita emission is a fraction, one-twentieth of that of the most
developed countries, onetenth in some places, one-fifth in others. So
I don't think we should be overawed by these arguments from the
developed countries. In our self-interest we have decided we will
adopt policies and strategies that will keep emission low and reduce
the rate of emission over a period of time without interfering with
our high rate of growth. We are entitled to grow like those countries
were entitled to grow when they had the opportunity. This is our
opportunity, we are entitled to grow.

SC: But our industrial projects, our growth centres, our cities have
zero concern about environment, human life. Shouldn't quality of life
— a sense of well-being — be a factor in the growth story? France is
revising what its GDP should mean to include the intangible but
crucial idea of "well-being".

Yes, but that's after you reach a certain level of GDP, a certain
degree of per capita…

SC: That's the point. First we must arrive at the crisis, then we will
look for the remedies.

Poverty is the worst polluter. If you are poor, you live in the most
polluted world. The sanitation is poor, the drinking water is poor,
the housing is poor, the air you breathe is poor. Everything is
polluted. Poverty is the worst polluter. It's our right, our duty, to
first overcome poverty. In the process, yes, we will be sensitive to
concerns expressed by other countries but not at the cost of our
growth and our goal of eliminating poverty in our lifetime.

SC: The worrying thing is that on the ground the exact opposite of
what you say is happening. Take the POSCO project or Vedanta or the
sponge iron factories in Raigad. It is the poor who are suffering the
most from the move towards industrialisation. Most of the unrest in
the country today is over development projects that are anti-people —
in terms of land takeover, resource usage, pollution of water and air.
On the very things you talked about — air, water, basic health, basic
living — the growth that is meant to alleviate poverty is adding to
their misery. Do you call this inevitable collateral or would you
admit the way we are going about things is wrong?

I think people are being deceived to believe that the existing state
of life is an ideal state of life and development and
industrialisation will make it worse. Here we talk about steel prices
going up, but for three years we have stopped the world's largest
steel producer from producing steel in India. This could be
categorised as a conspiracy of the socially-driven class to keep poor
people poor. What is the quality of life we are talking about? They
have no food, no jobs, no education, no drinking water. These
districts of Orissa have remained poor since the world dawned. They
live in abject poverty and you want me to accept the argument that if
you set up a steel plant or mine the minerals there, they will become
even poorer? What are we talking about?

SC: I am talking about the way it's done. So what do we do?

We keep the minerals buried in Mother Earth? We keep the iron ore
where it is, we keep the coal where it is and keep people poor? Is
that what you're suggesting? I'm telling you, we must develop those
iron ore mines, we must mine that coal, we must build industries, we
must give jobs to people. If this argument had prevailed there would
be no Jamshedpur, and today the quality of life in Jamshedpur is
better than in any other city in India. It has 24 hours water supply,
electric supply, it has education for all its residents, and it has
cleaner air than any other city. Had these people been around to
advice Mr Jamshedji Tata in 1908, there would have been no Jamshedpur
at all.

SC: That's just one example, and it's a hundred years old. I am
talking about the way we are industrialising now, the complete absence
of a "best practice" culture. How was Jamshedpur built?

Are you questioning the way industrialisation took place there?

SC: One would have to go back to see if there was unrest and pollution.

Look at the environment there today. They may have done some
short-term damage. It might have been a curve — you might do some
shortterm damage but you ride the curve, you hit the trough and then
it improves. Would you have wanted them to continue living in abject
poverty? Why do you assume that POSCO or the Mittals will not build in
Orissa and Jharkhand a place like Jamshedpur. Why do you assume so?

SC: There's little evidence to go by. There was a culture of
collective good and nation-building which no longer exists.

I don't agree that the only ones with consci ence and sensitivity to
the environment are NGOs, and that business houses and entrepreneurs
have no conscience and are totally oblivious to the larger good. I
don't agree at all. Just go to Neyveli and see. What was Neyveli? It
was the poorest part of Tamil Nadu and today it is a humming, buzzing
town and it has a school which has hundred percent pass results every
year. The boys and girls from that school are toppers in competitive
examinations. I sincerely hope you do not believe the poor enjoy a
high quality of life.

SC: Our governments have been pretty derelict in regulating or nudging
corporates to behave well. The Vedanta project in the Niyamgiri hills
in Orissa is a good example. It earned international censure for its
untenable behaviour in Orissa, a Norwegian fund even divested from it
because of that. But here it took a PIL to stall the project. Would
you agree that our government is failing to bat for the common good?

We have enough laws to take care of the issue. Apply those laws. If
the Central or state government does not enforce environmental laws
then blame that government. If the laws are inadequate, strengthen
them, but in the name of the environment, for heaven's sake, please
don't say that the poor should remain poor for the next five thousand
years.

SC: Take Vedanta again. I'm asking what is the view from the other
side, what is the government's thinking on them? Even after they were
stalled by the Supreme Court, the government asked it to reapply for
the project under its Indian company. You argued as a lawyer for them
when you weren't Finance Minister.

In one of their excise cases. What has that got to do with this? Are
you insinuating that my answers are coloured by the fact that I
appeared for them? If a lawyer is pleading for a client in a murder
case, does that imply that he has complicity in the murder? What is
the relevance of your statement?

SC: Alright, I'll withdraw it. I am asking, given their dismal track
record in Orissa, why is the government defending their position
instead of disqualifying them or pushing them towards better
practices?

So do it. Who is preventing you? Apply the laws. But don't stop the
project. That's the only way of rescuing those people from the
clutches of abject poverty.

SGR: To switch track, why are you opposed to food crop being diverted
for the generation of bio-fuel?

We grow food to consume it as food. We don't grow food to be converted
into fuel. Twenty percent of US corn is being diverted to fuel.
Sugarcane is being diverted to fuel. Palm oil is being diverted to
fuel and because of the high prices of fuel linked to the crude oil
crisis, people are diverting land which is meant to grow food grain to
grow crops for bio-fuels. How is this justified in a world where
millions of people are still going without food? We are serious about
making poverty history. We are serious about eliminating hunger and
malnutrition. I think the first point everybody should agree on is
that food should not be converted to fuel. If you want to produce
bio-fuels using non-food, do so. Find other land to grow crops for
producing bio-fuels.

SGR: What about your ban on futures trading in commodities?

The Abhijit Sen Committee said there's no conclusive evidence that
futures trade is fuelling a price rise. But it advised continuing the
current ban on four commodities. Isn't that confusing? I agree there
is no conclusive evidence that banning futures trade has any impact on
prices. But it was that very committee, not I, who said we should
continue the ban on rice, wheat, toor and urad. When the Parliamentary
Standing Committee says the same thing, if all political parties,
including the BJP which introduced commodities trading in the first
place, demand a ban, if people in villages start blaming futures and
commodities trading as the reason for price rise, you have to heed the
advice of the majority. That is what we have done. I'm reasonably sure
this ban will have no impact on the prices of these items, but
sometimes you do things that may have no positive impact, but
hopefully no negative ones either.

SC: To come back to a question that vexes everyone. In a country as
complex as ours, what is your vision for eliminating poverty? Does it
mean the co-existence of rural and urban economies?

Urbanisation cannot be stopped. It is an inexorable process. All you
can do is mitigate the harmful effects of mindless urbanisation by
building new cities, by limiting the size of cities, by creating more
green and open spaces in cities. I don't think it's within the power
of any country or people to stop this natural progression. We must try
to manage it rather than interfere with it. My vision of a
poverty-free India will be an India where a vast majority, something
like 85 percent, will eventually live in cities. Not megalopolises but
cities. In an urban environment it is easier and more efficient to
provide water, electricity, education, roads, entertainment and
security rather than in 6,00,000 villages. I also believe a
significant number of Indians would want to live in the countryside
and continue farming. That should be welcome and we should encourage
it, but it would be a much smaller number than people who have moved
to cities. My vision again is that we must continue to emphasise the
imperative need of growth over a long period of time. We get weary
easily. We have three to four years of high growth and we sit back as
though it is a given. Growth is not a given. You have to work hard for
it. We have to ensure that the growth process continues for the next
20-30 years. When we have eliminated poverty, illiteracy, some of the
most debilitating diseases, when we have immunised every child, when
we have eliminated very basic deficiencies like lack of drinking
water, electricity, rural road connectivity — at that point of time,
the process will become automatic and people will themselves ensure
that growth continues at a fairly sustained pace. But for that that
moment to arrive, to get rid of poverty in our lifetime, we need to
work very hard to sustain a growth rate of nine percent moving up to
10 percent. If you want to get rid of poverty over the next hundred
years, you can have a different model or system. But if you want to
get rid of it in the next 20 years, we have to work very hard for it.

SC: It sounds like a pipedream, because the experience on the ground
is very different. Look at Gurgaon — emblem of India Shining, coming
up on virgin land. It could have been a kind of urban utopia. Instead,
there is no water, no electricity, no public transport, huge
pollution, and absolutely no space or planning for the poor. Take any
other B-town. Moradabad. Siliguri. Patna. Take the megalopolises —
imploding under the weight of growth. The poor definitely don't seem
to be benefiting in these places.

So shall we leave people to live in these villages?

SC: I am asking is there a slower, deeper, more varied way of doing
things that might not mean instant and insane wealth for a few of us,
and yet ensure overall growth?

Apply the laws. Apply town-planning laws. The laws do not allow you to
build without providing water and open spaces. You are passing off our
collective failure to apply laws upon the model of development itself.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the model of development.
It is just the unwillingness of the authorities to enforce rules and
regulations. The answer is not to go back to the past and say, if we
cannot apply the laws, let's continue to live in our original state of
poverty, neglect and despair.

SGR: So if you had no political constraints, how would you fix the
agricultural sector?

This year, the latest assessment of 2008 by ICRA will show a growth
rate of 4.5 to 4.7 percent in agriculture. We are going to end up with
227 to 230 million tonnes of food grains. So agriculture in itself is
doing well. Yet farmers are poor because of the vast numbers dependent
on agriculture. If the numbers were much smaller, let's say half, you
would say agriculture is doing very well in India. So I don't think we
should confuse the issue between agriculture doing well and farmers
doing poorly. The way to fix agriculture is to address the five key
inputs required for agriculture:water, power, seeds, fertiliser and
credit.

I think we have done well on credits. We are beginning to do well on
water, thanks to the massive outlays and irrigation projects. It will
take some time, but when these projects are completed, we will do well
on water. We have neglected seeds, we have got a completely distorted
fertiliser subsidy regime, and we have failed miserably on the power
front. But Gujarat has shown us the way on how to fix power for
agriculture. With seeds, we made a beginning last year. We are trying
to increase the replacement rate of seeds and, with fertilisers, there
is a clear way out provided we are willing to bite the bullet. If all
these five things come together, agriculture will grow at a very rapid
rate of more than four percent a year. But even if it grows at four
percent, farmers will continue to remain poor because of the large
numbers dependent on agriculture. So the answer is to wean farmers
away from agriculture into industrial services — not urban slums, just
non-farm related activity. Do away with the romantic idea that we can
continue to sustain 60 percent of our population on agriculture.

SC: Let's go back to national resources, like minerals. When you hand
over national wealth to private corporations driven purely by the
profit motive, what is the logic of usage? What's to stop them
cynically destituting a place before moving on?

Don't hand it over to a private corporation. Set up an efficient PSU
if you want.

SC: But you are against PSUs. We are not, who said we are?

We are putting more money in NTPC, SAIL, NMDC. We have revived 29 sick
PSUs and put aside 13,000 crores in the last four years for this. So
create a PSU. But why this old mental block that private is greed and
therefore bad, and public is good.

SC: There are bad examples. Union Carbide, Enron.

If you want to continue with those traditional images of public and
private sector you are welcome. The point I'm making is coal and iron
ore is not meant to be kept buried under Mother Earth. They have to be
put to use. As for your fears about environment and overuse, when we
found that mining Kudremukh iron ore is highly polluting, we stopped
mining it. But the argument that resources should not be used is an
argument that must be rejected. Those who say that have a vested
interest in perpetuating poverty.

SC: You stopped mining in Kudremukh, but it is now a devastated place.
SGR: Let's move to another big fear. Retail. A government-sponsored
study recently reaffirmed the fear that the entry of large retail
formats will ultimately dry up all small and middle-level retail.

This is a genuine fear. There is no empirical evidence to show that
mom and pop stores will be wiped out if retail chains come. For
example, Walmart. I met its chairman the other day and he said their
47th store has opened in China and there's no evidence that mom and
pop stores in China are being wiped out. But still, the fear is
genuine, and it is the duty of the government to allay that fear. And
until it is completely removed, we are moving slowly and cautiously.
We are not saying the fear is unjustified. That is why we have opened
only wholesale, cash-and-carry and single brand retail to foreign
investments. We have not yet opened multi-brand retail.

SC: How far do you see the Maoist-Naxal phenomenon related to economic issues?

The areas affected by Naxals are in a pretty bad situation. They are
obviously thriving on the poverty and illiteracy of the tribal people
and the State owes a responsibility here because it has not paid
enough attention to those areas, nor has it respected the democratic
rights of those people. The State today is seen to be in conflict with
the tribals. And the Naxalites and Maoists are seen as allies of the
tribals. But the answer to the State's failure is not to encourage
left-wing extremism. We have to fight the Naxalites and at the same
time the State has to be more sensitive to the welfare of the tribals.

SC: The PM has brought up concerns over conspicuous consumption. Is
that valid given the economy that's being architected?

It is, but you can't legislate on it. It can only be stopped by
teaching values and ideals in schools and families.

SC: There is very little to distinguish between the economic policies
of the BJP and the Congress. What does that say?

I don't think the BJP is an originator of any economic policy. The
Congress is the originator of the new economic policy. The BJP carried
the ball forward in its own way, even if they made some mistakes.
Therefore this question must be put to the BJP — does the BJP want to
be a follower of the Congress-initiated economic policy?

>From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 21, Dated May 31, 2008

Palaniappan Chidambaram does not want to ruin his own copybook but the
rising international crude prices, fuelling an all-time high
inflation, are making things difficult for the country's erudite
finance minister. Days before he sat down for this no-holds barred
interview at his office in the imposing North Block, the FM had
rejected demands from the oil ministry for bonds to bail out ailing
PSUs and angered the cement lobby by forcing the cement companies to
lower prices.

Click below to post your views on eleven interesting issues raised by
the FM in the interview

<http://www.tehelka.com/story_main39.asp?filename=Ne310508cold_blood.asp>
>From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 21, Dated May 31, 2008

'Both BJP and Congress are pro-America and pro-rich'

RSS's Govindacharya creates a flutter. There is no difference between
the BJP and the Congress, he tells HARINDER BAWEJA
Photo: Shailendra Pandey

Senior RSS leader MG Vaidya has recently talked in terms of the BJP
and the Congress coming together to form a consensus government. Has
there been an internal discussion on this within the RSS?

No internal discussion. Such ideas have been floated in the past too.
The BJP is free to go ahead and work on the idea. The RSS will have no
objection. Earlier too, Advani said the same thing. What was Advani's
visit to Sonia Gandhi's house about? When he went to give her a copy
of his book. It was a gesture only. Given the political compulsions,
the need for a consensus government will arise after the elections.
The BJP and the Congress combine are unlikely to get more than 250
seats. Competition and cartelisation should be considered a part of
corporatocracy which goes under the name of democracy today.

How can the BJP and the Congress join hands? They are so ideologically
different.

Both are umbrella parties and there are swadeshi as well as videshi
elements in both of them. As far as the policies are concerned, both
the Congress and the BJP are subservient to the US. Both the parties
are pro-rich and both are pro-minorityism. Therefore, there should be
no hitch over policy differences.

Interesting. Are you saying that there is very little difference
between the two mainstream parties now?

There is only a marginal difference. The Congress may claim that they
will be bashing the BJP as Hindu communalists but only to gather
Muslim votes. So that is the only hitch. But once elections are over,
these aspects are brushed under the carpet. The cementing force is
nothing but political power.

Is it a serious thought or just an idea being floated?

This idea has got its genesis in earlier thought processes also. As
far as the RSS is concerned, definitely, it is as disenchanted with
the BJP as the Congress.

Will the RSS object to a national consensus government?

No, there will be no objection all. In fact, the RSS will feel very
relaxed because then there will be no RSS bashing.

In response to Vaidya's article, BJP president Rajnath Singh has said
that there is no such possibility.

That is just election campaign material, nothing else. After elections
when alignments are sought, differences will evaporate in the heat of
political power.

Do you think the BJP should make a beginning by saying yes to the nuclear deal?

I am totally opposed to the nuclear deal. Totally opposed.

What about the RSS?

The RSS has not thought over it and the BJP is divided, not because of
any ideological position but because of the electoral gains. They
don't know which stand to take. Therefore they stand confused. That
confusion is very much evident in Yashwant Sinha taking one stand,
Brajesh Mishra another, Jaswant Singh the third and Advani the fourth.

How do you think the BJP and the Congress can sort out differences in
economic and foreign policies?

There need not be any differences in economic policies. Both will be
pro-US in their foreign policy, and in the economic policy, both will
be pro-rich. They will be part and parcel of corporatocracy. That is a
new kind of polarisation in politics.

Isn't it surprising that the RSS is willing to bless such a move? Why
this change in approach?

The idea has been supported since long. Nanaji Deshmukh supported this
idea once. Atal Behari Vajpayee too supported it when it suited him.
The political matrix has changed and the change has initiated this
idea.

>From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 21, Dated May 31, 2008
-- 
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>