The Republican leadership of the US House of Representatives cancelled Friday's scheduled vote on President Donald Trump's bill to replace the healthcare reform carried out by predecessor Barack Obama.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said he and Trump agreed it would be better to withdraw the bill once it became clear that the measure would fail due to defections among the GOP majority, EFE news reported.

"We came really close today, but we came up short," the Wisconsin lawmaker told reporters. "I will not sugar-coat this. This is a disappointing day for us."

Republicans have spent the last seven years denouncing the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), the signature domestic programme of the 2009-2017 administration of Democratic President Barack Obama.

Trump made the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, as the ACA is known, a major theme of his 2016 campaign for the White House.

Following Friday's setback, however, the House speaker expressed uncertainty about future prospects for ending the ACA.

"I don't know what else to say other than Obamacare is the law of the land. It'll remain law of the land until it's replaced. We're going to be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future," Ryan said.

Republicans hold 237 of the 435 House seats, meaning they should have had the majority needed to pass the bill even though the Democrats were uniformly opposed.

But the bill was opposed by the 30-member Freedom Caucus, the most conservative element in the House GOP, for not going far enough to dismantle the ACA.

Ryan and the White House explored concessions aimed at bringing the Freedom Caucus on board only to spark new opposition from Republican moderates.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office after the withdrawal of the bill, Trump expressed disappointment while also praising Ryan for working "very, very hard" to pass the measure.

The President also sought to deflect blame onto the Democrats.

"We were very close, it was a very tight margin. We had no Democrat support, no votes from the Democrats," he said. "I think the losers are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer because now they own Obamacare."

He then offered to work with Democrats on a healthcare plan, EFE news added.

"When it (Obamacare) explodes, which it will soon, if they got together with us and we got a real healthcare bill, I would be totally open to it," Trump said.

"Perhaps the best thing that could happen is exactly what happened today, because we'll end up with a truly great healthcare bill in the future after this mess known as Obamacare explodes," he said.

With healthcare in limbo, the President said he wanted to focus on taxes.

"Now we're gonna go for tax reform. Which I've always liked," he said.

Back at the Capitol, House Democratic leader Pelosi hailed the withdrawal of the Republican bill as a "victory for the American people".

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Trump plan predicted that 14 million people would lose health coverage in 2018.

"What happened on the floor was a victory for the American people, for our seniors, for people with disabilities, for our children, for our veterans," Pelosi said at a press conference with other members of the Democratic congressional leadership. 
 

Making a remarkable recovery, India reduced Australia to 208 for six at tea on day one of the fourth and final cricket Test at picturesque HPCA Stadium, here today.

Australia skipper Steve Smith scored 111 while David Warner made 56 before being dismissed.

Debutant Kuldeep Yadav took three of the six Australian wickets.

The series is locked 1-1.

Brief Scores:

Australia 1st innings: 208 for 6 in 61 overs. (Steve Smith 111, David Warner 56; Kuldeep Yadav 3/41, Umesh Yadav 2/54, R Ashwin 1/36).

Bollywood actor Farhan Akhtar, who is popular for urban boy roles in movies, such as Dil Dhadakne Do, Rock On, and Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, has metamorphosed himself in a complete new transformation of a Bhojpuri actor for his role in upcoming film Lucknow Central. He would be the first actor from the Bollywood to play role of a Bhojpuri actor ever on the silver screen, as the Rock On actor always has been a big fan of Bhojpuri actor Majoj Tiwari's films.

Known for his new experiments in movies, Akhtar is having his meal at Jail set in Film City these days, to get the feeling of his character as a prisoner. Lucknow Central, which is produced by Nikkhil Advani's Emmay Entertainment and directed by Ranjt Tiwari is scheduled to release on 15 September.

Singer Nicole Scherzinger says she is a pussycat when it comes to love, but a lion in every other space in life. She is best known for as band member of The Pussycat Dolls, also called herself a fool for love. I’m a hopeless romantic. A fool for love. I’m not gonna be like, Yeah, love me! I’m not that girl, mirror.co.uk quoted Scherzinger as saying.

She has had her fill of heartbreak, most notably from a seven-year on off relationship with racing driver Lewis Hamilton that ended in 2015. For the past year, she has been dating tennis player Grigor Dimitrov, 25, and while she is happy to confirm it’s going well, she’s tight-lipped on specifics. “Am I in love right now? I’m afraid I don’t like to talk about my personal life. But I’m happy.”

Bill Condons directorial Beauty and the Beast is reportedly getting a sequel. The production company Disney wants to continue making the next instalment to follow the success of the Emma Watson and Dan Stevens starrer, reports HollywoodLife.com.

With the expected monster opening and the excitement that has surrounded the film, they are already considering a sequel to be released around 2019 or 2020. They want everyone back for an original story. It is the next phase of what Disney would like to do with their live-action sequels to their animated classics, said a source.

The sequel won’t be surprising for some people who are familiar with the movie franchise. Beauty and the Beast (1991) had three direct-to-video instalments. Set within the events of the first animated film, Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas came first and served as holiday special in 1997, followed by Belle’s Magical World in 1998. The third instalment, Belle’s Tale of Friendship, was released a year later in 1999 to promote Disney’s TV series titled Sing Me a Story with Belle. Currently, the production company is busy developing live-action remakes of The Lion King, Dumbo and The Little Mermaid.

While Marvel’s Cinematic Universe has been well received by critics and fans alike, Warner Bros. attempt to replicate the Disney-owned studio has been met with widespread criticism. Upcoming feature The Flash and The Batman have both been severely delayed, the latter losing Ben Affleck as director while gaining Matt Reeves of Cloverfield and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes fame. Even Aquaman the next DC Extended Universe due for release after this year’s Justice League, has been delayed until 21 December 2018 (a fitting Christmas tale). As picked up by Den of Geek, Variety reporter Justin Kroll has claimed Warner Bros is looking to film at least one more DC flick this year. They just don’t know which one.

The studio currently has a plethora of announced films that have no release dates and will choose from five including Suicide Squad 2, Gotham City Sirens, Dark Universe, The Flash and Green Lantern Corps. Legend of Tarzan writer Adam Cozad has reportedly signed on to write Suicide Squad 2, with Mel Gibson being pursued to direct the film.

David Ayer, will helm Harley Quinn-led spinoff Gotham City Sirens, rumoured to feature Megan Fox as Poison Ivy. Dark Universe also known as Justice League Dark has been in the works since 2013, when Guillermo Del Toro was on board to direct. After leaving the project, Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, Mr & Mrs. Smith, Edge of Tomorrow) signed on to direct. Earlier this month, comic book stalwart Matthew Vaughn was revealed to be in negotiations with Warner Bros regarding Man of Steel 2 following his work on Kingsman: The Golden Circle. Whatever the case, there are numerous projects that could likely be chosen to film this year.

The Independent

While Marvel’s Cinematic Universe has been well received by critics and fans alike, Warner Bros. attempt to replicate the Disney-owned studio has been met with widespread criticism. Upcoming feature The Flash and The Batman have both been severely delayed, the latter losing Ben Affleck as director while gaining Matt Reeves of Cloverfield and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes fame. Even Aquaman the next DC Extended Universe due for release after this year’s Justice League, has been delayed until 21 December 2018 (a fitting Christmas tale). As picked up by Den of Geek, Variety reporter Justin Kroll has claimed Warner Bros is looking to film at least one more DC flick this year. They just don’t know which one.

The studio currently has a plethora of announced films that have no release dates and will choose from five including Suicide Squad 2, Gotham City Sirens, Dark Universe, The Flash and Green Lantern Corps. Legend of Tarzan writer Adam Cozad has reportedly signed on to write Suicide Squad 2, with Mel Gibson being pursued to direct the film.

David Ayer, will helm Harley Quinn-led spinoff Gotham City Sirens, rumoured to feature Megan Fox as Poison Ivy. Dark Universe also known as Justice League Dark has been in the works since 2013, when Guillermo Del Toro was on board to direct. After leaving the project, Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, Mr & Mrs. Smith, Edge of Tomorrow) signed on to direct. Earlier this month, comic book stalwart Matthew Vaughn was revealed to be in negotiations with Warner Bros regarding Man of Steel 2 following his work on Kingsman: The Golden Circle. Whatever the case, there are numerous projects that could likely be chosen to film this year.

The Independent

Vocal music at Dover Lane Music Conference was rounded off with the elaborate recital of Pandit Jasraj of Mewati gharana. His exposition of sudh sarang was quite in form for sustaining the mood of kalyan that. Apart from his training from his elder brother Pandit Maniram, the spiritual inspiration of Maharaj of Sanand, added charm to his recital.

The gradual development of the melody balanced application of two madhyams picturised the familiar melodic structure of the raga. The use of rekhab and pancham in bistar and tankiri was endowed with artistry. Quite in tune was the treatment of the following madhu madhabi sarang. Panditji concluded with Bhairabi, the sensitive approach of which was touching. He was accompanied in his interpretation by Tripti Mukherjee and Ratanmohan Sharma.

Ajoy Chakravorty’s Abhogi was in his own lofty standard. The touch of komolgandhar among the suddha swara was evocative of sweetness. Next his thumri was lovable for romantic mystery. Chakravorty concluded with bhajan.

Ustad Rashid Khan’s Bhairab drew appreciation for the mature treatment of the raga with tuneful Swarabistar and balanced Tankiri.

Apurba Gokahali, the youngster of Gwaliar gharana impressed for her next demonstration of chayanot. The gradual expansion from slow to swift tempo revealed her sound training under supervision of her guru and uncle Pandit Madhukar Rao Joshi.

Ashwini Bhide of Jaipur Straili Gharana faithfully represented the tradition in her demonstration of Sadhana Kanada in Vilambit and Sutha Kanara in Chote Khayal. Marked by Bhide’s basical training from Pandit Narayan Patar strengthen and polished by the thorough tutelage of her mother and guru Srimati Manik Bhide acquired the stylised structure of the Atraulig Khayalk, gayaki in Bhide’s interpretation. All the aspects of surabistar reflected Bhide's thorough grasp resulting in authentic form of Jaipur gayaki. The recital was academic indeed. Rashid Khan's Bhairo was quite in tune with dawn’s sky. His recital was compact both from the point of view of ragdari and tankiri. Rashid’s technical brilliance was adeptly felt both in the vilambit and sargam. The touches of Rampur Sahaswan style added to the charm of the raga.

Agra gharana was represented by Shakat Ali Khan in his delineation of jog and choto khayal. Enjoyable was his creative variety with the dhut of rudraveena and vocal by Bahauddin Dagar and Nirmalya Dey in the melody of jog was good. This scribe regrets the missing presence of Rajan, Sajan, Kaiballya Kumar and Sudha Raghunath.

Actor Manoj Bajpayee has spent more than 22 years in the film industry, with several hit films in his kitty. But the actor has never been the first choice when it comes to commercial films. The 47- year-old actor, who has no godfather or family connection in the film industry, not only established himself but also impressed with his roles. Be it an underworld don in Satya, gangster in Gangs of Wasseypur, an honest police officer in School, shrewd politician in Rajneeti, or gay professor in Aligarh, Manoj Bajpayee fits well into every role. The actor was recently in the Capital to attend the 12th Mahindra Excellence in Theatre Awards (META) Festival, where he spoke about his love for theatre and his survival in Bollywood so far. Excerpts:

Two of your movies, Sarkar 3 and Naam Shabana, are slated for release. How excited are you about it?

Yes. Naam Shabana, is coming out soon. In Sarkar 3 I play a small but a significant role. In Naam Shabana, it’s a very significant role. Producer Neeraj Pandey and I are very good friends.

In the trailer of Sarkar 3, you were shown against Amitabh Bachchan. This is not the first time you have been pitched against Bachchan. Is it talent vs talent?

I don’t know why we both have been made two sides of a coin in every film. I am a huge admirer and have grown up seeing his films in childhood. His films led me to become an actor. I don’t like opposing him in every film but it is the characters and we both have to play them. On the talent front, you have to ask the respective directors.

How do you feel working with him (Amitabh Bachchan)?

I respect him a lot. I enjoy working with him because he is extremely professional.

If one talks about good movies in Bollywood, some of your movies will figure in this list. But why don’t we see them so often?

Of course I have done some commercial movies, not much. Wherever I feel that I will be stereotyped I run away from them. Because I am an actor and have the ability to explore new characters. I love to do challenging characters.

Whosoever has come out of theatre, including you, is a very matured, good actor. Don’t you think theatre should be made mandatory before stepping into cinema world?

I won’t say theatre is mandatory for film actors but also for other professionals, who want to do well in their life. Theatre is not only great for actors, directors or technicians, it is great for any kind of professional. I suggest parents must enroll their kids into theatre because it will help them in exploring their personality.

In Bollywood, a few theatre actors, after some struggle, have earned a good name in the cinema industry. But some actors, who just have a family background in films, have established themselves easily. What is your take on it?

This is a fact, I live with it, have never complained about it. A shopkeeper always gives his throne to his kid. Since it is a film industry, like any other industry, the owner of the industry will always give his throne to his kids. This is the reality of industry not now but has been happening for years. Irony is that we outsiders can’t even complain about it. We have to fight to establish ourselves.

It was reported actor Kangana Ranaut raked up nepotism in Bollywood. Do you agree with her?

I read everything that Kangana Ranaut said, and the only conclusion I came up with is that she is a very brave girl. Anybody and everybody can’t be a lone fighter, but Kangana is lone fighter and she is winning all the way. Kudos to her, I stand by her.

You spent almost 22 years in the television industry. Are you happy with the achievements so far?

Forget about 22 years, I tell you I haven’t started yet. The beginning is yet to come. I have always maintained that this industry has only used just 25 per cent of my talent. Still 75 per cent is left.

For die-hard fans of the iconic British band Dire Straits, the concert on 17 March at Leisure Valley in Gurgaon, was an unmissable treat. The band performing was The Dire Straits Experience (DSE) supporting the 100 Pipers 'Play for a Cause' concert. The initiative Be Remembered for Good will focus on helping provide sustainable drinking water to seven villages in Rajasthan from the revenue generated through ticket sales.

The DSE members comprise original Dire Straits band mates Chris White on saxophonist, flute, percussion, vocals and Chris Whitten on drums, supported in the lead by Terence Reis ~ lead vocals and guitar, Tim Walters ~vocals and guitar, Simon Carter on piano, organ and keyboards, Danny Schogger on piano, organ and keyboards, and Paul Geary ~ vocals and bass guitar.

At a gathering the previous evening, Chris White and Terence Reis spoke about their roots, the evolution of music, how electronic instruments helped the band to expand from a small rock band to 11 members at one time, with particular reference to the music in 'Brothers-in-Arms' and the effects of the Internet on upcoming musicians and that music had come full circle.

Chris explained that upcoming musicians have started performing in pubs and restaurants, similar to the musicians of the 1970s. But they (upcoming musicians) have to cope with the vast competition introduced by the internet which has made it harder for the younger generation to enter the scene. There is stiff competition as anybody can upload his or her performance and become an overnight sensation.

“Music is a live thing,” Chris White added that the golden era of music was the 60s onwards and to be a part of that is a gift beyond gift. He spoke about the incredible power of music, that it brings together people from across nations and cultures.

Looking back he said, it all started with Mark Knopfler inside a studio when they were composing and recording for a film track, adding I didn’t leave (the studio) for three days!

Incidentally, Mark Knopfler had performed in the country earlier. The Dire Straits disbanded in 1995 when Knopfler went on to have a successful solo career. Chris White and Terence Reis formed the Dire Straits Experience to perform in shows. Here are excerpts from an exclusive one-on-one interaction.

Tell us about you association with Seagram’s 100 Pipers 'Play for a Cause' initiative and how important is it for a musician to get involved with social causes to spread awareness.

Chris White (CW): I think it’s a very individual thing. I’ve always wanted to come and play in India. It’s the first time for the band in India. We are very excited. I’m one of the luckiest people to do the thing I’m passionate about. I come from a humble background. To be involved in an initiative like this feels absolutely right, because that’s where I belong. And to be able to give something back is an opportunity not to miss out. I don’t know how many people get influenced but if you can change one person’s mind, that’s a job well done.

Terence Reis (TR): I think it can also be a hornet’s nest for all sorts of reasons none of which are healthy but if I can speak freely about this… it’s got nothing to do with the band. We’ve got things going on in this planet now where people are only retreating to their own corners. We need to work together, now more than ever. I come from Africa ~ there’s drought, famine. To see it firsthand there are certain elemental things which when you have the opportunity, it’s not just the cause, that has the integrity behind it as much as the label. So we had to make sure that this one (Seagram’s 100 Pipers) had a long track record.

You will be playing in India for the first time. How does it feel?

CW: I’m looking forward to playing, hope everyone who has come has a good time. Would love to come again! If you will have me…

TR: It’s lovely to meet the people as well. It’s nice after a show to talk to people afterwards. It feels great!

We lost many legendary musicians in 2016. What impact did it have on you as artists?

CW: The loss of such huge musicians definitely jolted us. We are deeply saddened by the loss. Certainly, there can’t be another David Bowie, or George Michael or Prince. Having said that, I do believe ‘Music’ is a live thing. Hence there can never be a void. If there is a star today, there will be another tomorrow. Every generation will have a new star. I have great faith in the future of music

How difficult is it to play DS music almost like the original tracks?

CW: We try to change the music every time we play and make mistakes…

TR:  that are noticed! (laughs). So it’s difficult.

Tell us something about Walk of Life.

CW: It’s one of the easiest of the songs, happier song. It’s upbeat.

TR: Dire Straits manager, Ed Bicknell had told us that when they recorded it, Mark did not even want it on the record because the drummer was speeding up. Ed said, You’re an idiot. It’s gonna be a hit, and so they put it on anyway and it went on to become a hit!

Any 'crazy fan moment' when something funny happened?

TR: People ask us strange things. The one that gets me was in Spain. It’s actually Chris' story. This guy came up to us and pulled out a huge poster with Mark’s picture. So Chris said, 'That’s not me', (shrugs) and then signed it!

CW: I understand this perfectly. When I first wrote with Paul McCartney, he walked up to me and talked to me for about 20 minutes and I couldn’t say a thing. All I kept thinking was, That’s Paul McCartney, That’s Paul McCartney.

You can trace DSE's roots to a fusion of a brilliant mix of funk and jazz combined with classic rock to form the band’s originality.

Terence Reis is the only person on the planet who is able to play and sing like Mark Knopfler and also maintain his own integrity and identity. He replicates Mark’s guitar and singing style with such brilliance, it's extraordinary to say the least. One can easily mistake it for Mark on stage. Terence’s voice has the identical raspy yet mellow timbre.

The band’s fans span across generations and from every corner of the globe. They have been hooked to the unique sound of DS and their brilliant compositions for four decades. That’s a record by itself.

The concert at Leisure Valley Garden in Gurgaon turned out to be quite an unforgettable night with numbers from Dire Straits' popular albums being performed.

The crowd grew louder when one of their most successful tracks, Walk of Life was played. It was a pleasure to listen to a scintillating solo by Chris White on the saxophone.

When they started with the haunting lyrics of Brother In Arms, a whole generation of fans listened with pounding hearts even as the whoops of euphoric youngsters broke into the stirring electric atmosphere.

As DSE's performance for the evening came to its close with the band members holding hands and taking a bow, the crowd still hungry for more music thundered, One more! and were rewarded with the big number of the day. Dire Straits iconic track, Money For Nothing made the crowd delirious. I want my….I want my……I want my…..I want my MTV! resonated all around even as everyone present joined the chorus.

It was not surprising to see that the huge crowd of DS fans that comprised every age from young 21-year-olds to those with salt-pepper hair, swinging with abandon to the music of the Sultans of Swing. The radiant faces emitted one united expression of joy that could only translate into Dreams do come true!

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) on Friday banned Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) and 12 others from equity derivatives trading for one year and directed RIL to disgorge nearly Rs 1,000 crore for alleged fraudulent trading in a 10-year-old case.

The ban, in effect from Friday, relates to alleged fraudulent trading in the Futures and Options (F&O), or derivatives, space in the securities of RIL's former listed subsidiary Reliance Petroleum (RPL) – now merged with the listed parent firm.

A stock goes banned in F&O when its derivative contracts cross 95 per cent of the market-wide position limit (MWPL).

The Mukesh Ambani-led RIL has been asked to pay Rs 447 crore, which along with an annual interest of 12 percent since November 29, 2007, taking the total disgorgement liability for the company to nearly Rs 1,000 crore. It has been asked to pay the amount in 45 days.

The Sebi order, passed by whole-time Member G. Mahalingam, said RIL and 12 other entities have been prohibited from dealing in the "equity derivatives in the F&O segment of stock exchanges, directly or indirectly".

"I am inclined to pass certain directions against the notices in order to protect the interest of the investors and reinstill their faith in the regulatory system. The notices may, however, square off or close out their existing open positions."

RIL in a statement said it would appeal against SEBI's decision. The company said it had full confidence in the judicial process and proposed to vigorously exercise all options available to challenge the untenable findings in the order.

It said the trades in RPL shares were genuine and the regulator appears to have misconstrued the true nature of the transactions.

RIL remains confident of fully justifying the veracity of the transactions and vindicating its stand, the statement added.

When Jagat Prakash Nadda, 56, resigned his Cabinet berth in Himachal Pradesh and moved to Delhi in 2010 to be part of the BJP’s national set-up as general secretary, not many could foresee his stupendous rise. With roots deep in the organisation, Nadda, who played an important role for the BJP in the run-up to the 2014 Parliament polls, was elevated as Union health minister in the government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Nadda has been in the limelight since then, bringing him in sharp focus in his home state, as many see a parallel in his rise to the career of former Chief Minister Prem Kumar Dhumal of the BJP. Ahead of the 2017 assembly polls, Nadda is tightlipped on the issue and says he is busy with his assignment at the Centre. “Health is a big field. The more I understand, the more I get absorbed,” he said. In an interview to Archana Phull and Sanjeev Kumar in Shimla, he spoke exclusively about issues in the health sector. Excerpts:

Q. What is special about the National Health Policy, 2017?
A. The 2012 health policy focused on care of the sick. The new policy talks of wellness of health, prevention and care. Now that 60 per cent of deaths occur due to non-communicable diseases (NCDs), our focus would be on them. The policy is ‘patient-centric’ and will empower the patients. We will have National Standards Organisation for medical care and establish a programme for treatment, set up health tribunals for addressing grievances of patients. At present, 70 per cent of medical equipment is imported. We will encourage that it is made in India. Health cards, with Aadhaar number, will be issued, for access by doctors anywhere. The digitisation of health records will help in tele-consultations and tele-medicine. On the whole, the policy has a self-committing implementation framework. By 2025, the health budget will increase to 2.5 per cent of GDP. 

Q. There is criticism that the new policy gives more priority to the private sector?
A. The private sector has grown in the course of time. It needs engagement and regulation. It requires a balanced approach regarding the emerging demand and services, which have to be rationalised. The health policy was a manifestation of demand and has passed through maximum consultation process. It was finalised after discussions by 14 committees, their visits to states and brainstorming sessions with officials and stakeholders. The draft policy was put out in the public domain. We got 5,000 responses. It also went to the Group of Ministers for consideration and suggestions. Such exhaustive consultations have never been followed.

Q. Has the National Health Mission (NHM) produced desired results all these years?
A. NHM is to work in mission mode and it’s a major component of the health budget. We keep reviewing it. The indicators of NHM have been encouraging as far as the Centre’s part is concerned.  We have reduced Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR), Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) and under-five mortality. The NHM has given results. However health being a state subject, the responses of the states are different. Twenty four states have brought down the Total Fertility Rate to 2.7. Two or three states are above 3. Pan-India, we have marked 148 districts which need special attention in NHM.

Q. What about your home state Himachal in this regard?
A. NHM is doing well in HP but it can do better. The fund utilisation has to improve in Himachal.

Q. Central health projects in HP are stuck. Doctors from Himachal are heading prestigious institutions in India, but they don’t want to serve back home.
A. I think Himachal is not giving priority to the health sector. Governance is an issue in Himachal. The Central government has sanctioned funds to the state for different works, including the State Cancer Institute, super specialty block of Indira Gandhi Medical College, ICMR funding for study on jaundice outbreak. But if the Himachal government is unable to move forward at its end and can’t even find land for such institutes, what can we do?  Regarding doctors, I think there is no environment in Himachal.

Q. What about targets to eradicate various diseases from India?
A. Yes, we are aggressively working to achieve them. Kalazaar will be eradicated by 2017, leprosy in 2018, tuberculosis by 2025. We are also working to stabilise population by 2025. While the focus will be on NCDs, our programme on universal screening of people for blood pressure (the genesis of all diseases), breast and oral cancer, cervix cancer, and blood tests in 100 vulnerable districts free of cost in the first phase will simultaneously address communicable diseases. Chronic diseases will also come to notice and all this will help in prevention.
Q. The Central government has opened AIIMS and medical colleges across the country.  Do we have qualified doctors for that?
A. We will increase post graduate seats by 5,000 within the next few years. In-house training is also being increased. The AIIMS established decades back are giving dividends now. All such institutions grow with time and continuously. We will, however, not dilute the culture of AIIMS and will not compromise with quality.  We will not select candidates if quality is not there. It recently happened in one of the premier institutions in the North, where we chose to keep a number of posts vacant after interviews.  Legislation is also being brought for revolutionary changes in the quality of medical education in the country.

Q. Do you have plans to strengthen Central Research Institute, Kasauli, and other vaccine institutes in the public sector?
A. Yes, immediately after coming to power, we had released funds for CRI, which was being starved previously. We will continue to strengthen these institutes and see that they manufacture vaccines as per capacity.

Q. What is the focus area to develop health infrastructure now?
A. Our focus is now in the east and north. Southern and western India have progressed a lot and have an established private sector component too. The concern, however, is that many states are not adopting the Clinical Establishments Act properly.

Interviewed by to Archana Phull and Sanjeev Kumar.

Sheikh Hasina’s upcoming visit to India between April 7 and 10 is turning out to be perhaps her most important bilateral visit to a country that surrounds Bangladesh from three sides, making it the only neighbour in all but a physical sense. 
It is now known that the Bangladeshi leader turned down the Indian request for a 25-year defence treaty. In its place there will likely be now a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on several related issues including purchase of equipment and weapons needed for UN peacekeeping, disaster response and management, land mine detection, spare parts for Russian Migs, etc. For all this India appears willing to extend US$ 500 million in credit.

Indian leaders, policymakers and even the media agree that Sheikh Hasina’s government has gone far beyond the extra mile possible to improve Bangladesh-India relations.

In The Times of India, Subir Bhaumik, a former BBC correspondent and a frequent commentator on India-Bangladesh relations, wrote, “Hasina has been steadfast in her support of Modi government’s ‘isolate Pakistan’ drive, her government has cracked down hard on northeastern rebels and Islamist militants, on fake currency rackets and Pakistani agents to address Indian security concerns. She has cleared transit for Indian goods to the Northeast through Bangladesh territory and addressed most of India’s connectivity concerns seen as crucial to success of India’s Look East policy. As Hasina prepares for her Delhi visit, Indian and Bangladeshi officials are trying to finalise a deal to allow Indian use of Chittagong and Mongla ports for accessing the northeast.”

What Bhaumik did not mention, and one fact that India truly needs to be grateful to Sheikh Hasina for, is her determined and successful effort to dismantle all the camps of the insurgents from the Northeast that Khaleda Zia’s government had allowed in a mistaken policy to keep ‘pressure’ on India. Over time these insurgents had become a genuine worry as their destructive power rose with sanctuary on Bangladesh’s side of the border. Thankfully, that is now history. Not to be forgotten or its importance underrated is how Sheikh Hasina’s government has changed the narrative from “India, the hegemonic oppressor” to “India, the development partner” ever since she came to power in 2009. I was a part of the entourage to the Indian capital in January 2010, when the Awami League chief risked her political future and took a leap of faith and signed a very comprehensive agreement with India in which, in one go, she responded to most of India’s important demands without getting any of Bangladesh’s demands met. Her faith has so far worked only partially in terms of duty free access of Bangladeshi goods in the Indian market, a major demand from our side. The story on energy cooperation is also good.However, the biggest frustration remains in the crucial area of water sharing, especially of the Teesta. Bangladesh stands greatly disappointed on this score as no tangible progress has been made since it was aborted at the very last minute on the eve of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s last visit in September, 2011.

India’s complex and controversial river-linking project hangs on Bangladesh’s head as a possible doomsday scenario with unknown implications for our ecology. India appears not to sufficiently appreciate the fact that all of Bangladesh is a delta and we survive only if our rivers do.  All Sheikh Hasina’s efforts appear to be now in jeopardy as India seems to be quite concerned about her China policy which resulted in the latter’s increasing presence not only in Bangladesh’s development projects but also in the sensitive area of military equipment purchase.

China has been by far the biggest source of defence purchase for Bangladesh for many years, ever since the coming of military in power in 1975 , reinforced in 2002 when former prime minister Khaleda Zia inked a comprehensive umbrella agreement during her visit to China.

India of course has been watching with considerable unease as bilateral cooperation between Bangladesh and China soared. Indian discomfort experienced a quantum leap when during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit when Bangladesh-China cooperation was elevated from “comprehensive partnership cooperation” to “strategic partnership cooperation” and China offered US$ 24 billion worth of economic and development aid with another US$ 13 billion in private sector investment.

What perhaps set the alarm bells ringing loud in New Delhi was the procurement of two refurbished Chinese submarines which brought the Indian defence minister for his maiden visit and the push for a 25-year defence pact proposing enhanced cooperation between the two militaries and insisting on purchase of defence equipment from India.

In Bangladesh the usual pattern of politics was to have improved relations with China when Khaleda Zia came to power and a distinct cooling of it when Sheikh Hasina formed the government accompanied by a pronounced tilt towards India.
Since coming to power in 2009 Sheikh Hasina has changed all that. For the first time the present prime minister, to her considerable credit, was able to forge uniquely close relations with India while simultaneously making China a major development and investment partner.

So how should India view Bangladesh’s rising closeness with China?  With suspicion or with maturity? Should India insist on countering the imagined Chinese ‘influence’-  imagined because China has in no way been able to influence our policy of friendship towards India – by forcing a ‘defence treaty’ or ‘greater defence cooperation’ on Bangladesh? Will such  enhanced cooperation’ give India any additional strategic benefit than it already enjoys?

Bangladesh needs India as a close ally and friend. But it also needs China as a significant development partner. It is unrealistic on India’s part to expect any government in Bangladesh not to try to reach out to China while pursuing a very close relationship with India. Over the many decades that Sheikh Hasina has been in politics and the several years she has been in power she has been consistent in her policy of good relations with India. What is new is her success to reach out to China. Instead of looking at it with suspicion India should repose trust on Bangladesh as a reliable ally and see her policy towards China as contributing to regional stability and bringing two Asian giants closer. If there is to be an Asian Century it will have to be built both by India and China and it has to benefit their smaller neighbours.  Stability is the key to Asia’s future and that stability can only be guaranteed by India and China coming closer, which they are doing through  bilateral trade aiming to reach a US$100 billion in the near future and billions of dollars' investment in each others’ countries. The idea of exclusive sphere of influence of each of these Asian Giants with “No Entry” sign for the other is an outdated concept and one that is doomed to failure in this digital age. A new element in our regional equation is the overt hostility of President Trump towards China and his declared policy of confronting the latter in the South China Sea. What effect is Trump’s policy likely to have on Narendra Modi’s resurgent Hindu nationalist government, especially on the hawks of the party? Will the US President’s anti-China policy encourage India to push for an anti-Chinese policy on her neighbours? Will India see Trump as an opportunity to upstage China in South Asia, especially because of China’s support for Pakistan remains strong while India’s relations with the latter has dipped to its lowest ebb?

The question for us is, how will Trump’s anti-China policy affect India, and how will it play out in South Asia, especially on India’s attitude towards Bangladesh?

Whatever it is, Bangladesh should never allow itself to be drawn into the India-China rivalry. We want India to be our ‘closest friend’ but ‘not our only friend’. Sheikh Hasina’s commitment to good relations with India is beyond question. So why should her reaching out to China be seen with suspicion? She has also reached out to Russia and our ties with this re-emerging superpower, and a significant partner in our Liberation War, is far better than it has ever been since 1971.
As Sheikh Hasina’s visit comes closer, India must seriously think how to forge a new, dynamic and win-win relationship with its emerging neighbour in the East.

The writer is Editor and Publisher, The Daily Star, Bangladesh. This is a series of columns on global affairs written by top editors and columnists from members of the Asia News Network and published in newspapers and websites across the region.

It is the clear verdict of history that the Cold War between the Allies and the former Soviet Union, that was to last half a century after the Second World War, was a direct result of British and American generals repeatedly ignoring civilian directions at the concluding stages of the war. The Allied military leadership, while marching into Germany opened a broad front for the liberation of Berlin, ignoring warnings that Stalin was making a straight dash for the Capital city. The civilian leadership could rightly anticipate that if the latter were to reach there first, Berlin would be a divided city.

In retrospect, the civilian strategy proved to be wiser. For half a century, the two nuclear blocs ~ NATO and the Soviets ~ were locked in an ‘eyeball to eyeball’ confrontation in Berlin, putting the whole world under the threat of a nuclear holocaust. And it was a similar story of warped military thinking that landed many of the East European nations into the iron grip of the former Soviet Union through their local Communist parties ~ agents of the Soviet Communist party. The most tragic case was that of Poland.

Overrun by the Nazis, Poland was fighting with its back to the wall. The Polish Resistance was fighting the occupying Germans in alliance with the local communist party, waiting for the promised help from the Soviet Army. The Red army did march all the way from Russia but halted abruptly at the gates of Warsaw. The Allied military leadership was supplying arms to the Polish Resistance to fight the Nazis, in close alliance with the local communists, who betrayed them to the Nazis when the moment arrived.

The British civilian leadership had cautioned their military not to encourage the Polish resistance to trust their communist allies, who were merely acting as proxies for Moscow. The tragic scenario unfolded precisely as the Allied civilian leadership had anticipated. The Polish communists betrayed the Polish Resistance ~ behind their back ~ to the occupying Nazis who butchered them mercilessly. It has been described as the most pernicious act of perfidy in the Second World War. Only after the butchery was complete, did the Red Army enter, with Polish communists ~ who did not fight ~ riding piggyback.

Soon after Second World War, the most serious conflict was the Korean War. The Allied forces were led by the US General, Douglas MacArthur, the hero of many a battle during the earlier war. Undoubtedly, he was a great military commander but a poor political strategist. The North Koreans had invaded South Korea, with the support of the Chinese communists. MacArthur wanted to cross the river boundary between Korea and China, and take the fight right into China.

By which time, China had come under Communist rule led by Mao Zedong. He was a ruthless dictator who was prepared to sacrifice a few lakh Chinese soldiers, for a “cause”. His army had just one gun for three soldiers, so that if the gun-carrying soldier was to be killed, his weapon would be passed on to the next soldier. For this reason, he had developed the ‘human wave’ tactics. MacArthur completely misread him, convinced that the Chinese would not intervene, their army being ill-prepared and under-armed. For his poor military judgment, he was dismissed from service.

The world was on the brink of a nuclear holocaust in 1962, over US-USSR confrontation over Cuba, a Soviet satellite. The former Soviet Union had clandestinely smuggled offensive nuclear missiles there, posing a nuclear threat to the USA. The Americans imposed a blockade of Cuba, preventing any ship from either entering or leaving. At the time, both the USA and the USSR were super powers, heavily armed with nuclear weapons. The USA had imposed very tough conditions on the USSR. A blockade, by itself was a somewhat humiliating ban on the then other major power.

President Kennedy was the US P resident, who, incidentally, was himself a former Naval officer with experience of war. The US military advised him to maintain the blockade which could possibly have led to a nuclear exchange, and the whole world could have been faced with a catastrophe. The civilian advice to him was wiser ~ a quarantine, which would permit the Soviet ships access to Cuba but after inspection by the US Navy so that no offensive cargo was being ferried.

The US move was complied with by the Soviets, and proved to be a face-saver for the other super power. Shockingly, the then US Air Chief in an unprecedented show of utter defiance of civlian authority made his intention open ~ his bombers would start bombing Cuba within the hour. It was an unprecedented act of open defiance of civilian authority that could have resulted in a nuclear war with the Soviets. The threat was issued after President Kennedy had publicly declared cessation of the dispute with the Soviets. The Air Chief had to be almost physically prevented from doing so.
Modern psychologists tell us that a man acts according to his experience and training. A soldier who has been taught the art of war and trained to fight all his life to win, and win decisively by annihilating the “enemy” cannot suddenly turn a peacenick. For him, there is only one glory ~ to be recognised for ‘victory’ in battle. To be denied this, for whatever reason is to question his very existence and being.

In sum, the question of a Defence Supremo is closely linked to the question of primacy of the civil or military viewpoint not only during peacetime but even during war. The issue assumes critical importance in the age of nuclear weapons when the nuclear powers, both declared and undeclared have a combined destructive capacity of a million Hiroshimas. History is replete with instances of disasters whenever the military viewpoint has prevailed even during war.

Galbraith, the top civilian adviser to President Kennedy during the Cuban crisis, was a witness to the US military functioning during the last time almost the entire humanity stood on the edge of a precipice ~ “In the US, as in other democracies, it is thought wise and even necessary that the military power be kept subordinate to civilian authority and restraint … in nearly all recent Pentagon confrontations when faced with the strongly conditioned attitude of the military, civilians have surrendered thereto.”

(Concluded)

The writer is a retired IAS officer.

The election symbol is the most valued possession of any political party. The ruling AIADMK in Tamil Nadu is no exception. Its ‘two leaves’ symbol popularised by the party’s founder-leader MG Ramachandran has been prohibited in the 12 April by-election in the RK Nagar Assembly constituency by the Election Commission of India. Following the death of former AIADMK Chief Minister J Jayalalitha on 5 December, the party has split into two: one faction claiming the support of the people led by O Panneerselvam who succeeded Jayalalitha as CM on 6 December and the other by VK Sasikala who grabbed the general secretaryship of the AIADMK though she was not eligible to hold the post. She is not even eligible to be a voter for the next 10 years. The majority of the AIADMK MLAs chose to sail with Sasikala for considerations not worthy of their calling. She has chosen her nephew TTV Dinakaran, against whom several serious criminal cases are pending and his citizenship itself is suspect, for the RK Nagar seat and gave him Form B (authorisation for nomination of a candidate) to contest on behalf of the AIADMK. The Panneerselvam faction has nominated E Madhusudhanan, president of the AIADMK presidium, for the seat. The EC was put in a dilemma on the question of allotting the ‘two leaves’ symbol. According to Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, whenever there is a split in the party the symbol should go to the group with the majority. In the present case, the Sasikala faction holds the majority in the legislature as proved in a recent vote of confidence. But the MLAs were kept in harness and taken straight to the Assembly without giving them an opportunity to visit their constituencies. The EC had taken recourse to Para 15 of the Election Symbols Order in deciding the Samajwadi Party symbol dispute in favour of Akhilesh Yadav recently. But the AIADMK symbol dispute is not that simple. In this case, the EC relied on the precedent set by the order of the then Chief Election Commissioner R V S Peri Sastri freezing the ‘two leaves’ symbol. Following the death of MGR in 1988, the first split in the AIADMK occurred: one group was led by his widow Janaki Ramachandran and the other by Jayalalitha. Just as in the present case, the majority in the legislature claimed by the Janaki group could not be established beyond doubt. Peri Sastri’s compromise offer to have a free symbol each incorporating a miniature form of ‘two leaves’ was rejected by both. In the Assembly election held in January 1989 both factions of the AIADMK without the benefit of the ‘two leaves’ were routed. Only after the merger of the two groups and restoration of the ‘two leaves’ symbol was the AIADMK able to win an election and form the government in 1991. For the 12 April by-election to the RK Nagar Assembly seat, neither faction is permitted to use even the name AIADMK, let alone the ‘two leaves’ symbol. One does not have to be a psephologist or an astrologist to predict the outcome of the RK Nagar polls. History is repeating itself.

The Election Commission would be doing itself and the democratic process considerable disservice if it echoed the “sour grapes” line of the government and BJP members of the Rajya Sabha, and ignored the points made by the Opposition during the Elders’ discussion on electoral reforms. It is a tragic truth that with demonstrative disruption having usurped the place of dignified discussion in the apex legislature, there is tendency to treat lightly (even by the Presiding Officers) views expressed in “non-violent” debate, or for everything to be perceived through the prism of party politicking, yet there can be no masking the grim reality that the sanctity of the election mechanism is no longer “a given”. And the failure of Nirvachan Sadan to inspire the desired levels of trust and confidence is ominous. Allegations and suspicions that officials performing electoral duties function in accordance with the diktat of the ruling party, regardless of which party happens to be in power in the Centre or state at any given point in time, must be sincerely examined. The credibility of a process in which the nation took such tremendous pride must never be sacrificed at the altar of convenience. During the recent elections, in fiery UP in particular, the EC did “take note” of many transgressions, but seemed to back off from cracking the whip on anyone. With the result that questions are now being asked if the Commission has lost its “bite” after being shorn of the “Seshan bark”. Under sustained attack in the Elders was the use of Electronic Voting Machines that were not backed up by the “paper trail” system. Sure there is an element of “losers’ lament” to the criticism from the BSP and Samajwadi Party members, yet the fact that members of other parties which had little at stake in UP and Uttarakhand echoed their apprehensions added a ring of authenticity to the flak.

Significantly, the assault was not mounted on Nirvachan Sadan but on the central government for not making requisite funds available to it for upgrading apparatus. That some former CECs have faulted the Commission for not forcefully countering the criticism of “doctored” EVMs is something not to be discounted. Several other “reforms” were mentioned during the debate ~ by members from all sides of the House ~ which would require political consensus to implement. Hence it is critical that the debate be sustained, not shelved until the next round of elections. Yet in the short term the onus rests squarely with the EC, it cannot get away with claiming that EVMs are tamper-proof. After all, it was one of the BJP’s current spokesmen who was among the earliest of the “doubting Thomases”: doubts do not evaporate when “landslides” are recorded.

Formula 1, or F1 for short, is undoubtedly the football of motorsports. Fans get attached to teams more than the drivers fairly early and are loyal till death.

There comes a time when a team (or driver) engages in some underhand tactics. However, it does raise questions about the integrity of people involved in F1.

The Statesman has compiled a list of the 10 most controversial moments in F1’s chequered history:

1994: Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger’s shocking deaths
Without meaning to sound too insensitive, a crash in a sport as frenetic as F1 is not a big deal and while a loss of human life can never be trivial, Williams driver Ayrton Senna’s crash and subsequent death at Imola is a dark event that has been shrouded in controversy for decades since.The racing fraternity was reeling with rookie Ratzenberger’s death during qualifying on Saturday but nothing could have prepared them for Senna’s death come race day. While the crash in itself could have been avoided, there was another bigger issue. Senna’s time of death was marked as 2:17 pm local time which meant the triple champion had died on impact. Instead of cancelling the race and thereby suffering a massive financial loss, the organisers delayed the announcement of his death and while subsequent trials in Italian courts have dragged on, their much-delayed judgement have left many who witnessed Senna’s death with a sour taste in the mouth.
 

1989-90: Senna-Prost, an epic rivalry that went too far 
Super-fast cars driven by ultra-competitive athletes is a concoction that is bound to bring controversy. And when two of the greatest drivers of their era went head-to-head, sparks flew and how. Suzuka, hosting the Japanese Grand Prix, was witness to some decidedly underhand tactics from both McLaren drivers as they desperately tried to win the championship. First, in 1989, Prost was leading the title ranking going into the penultimate race of the season with Senna needing a win to keep his championship hopes alive. Prost led the race from pole and didn't let Senna pass, which led to the Brazilian barging him off the track and going on to win the race. F1 stewards decided to disqualify the Brazilian and scupper his chances of the year’s tittle, a contentious decision even now. Then next year at the same venue, with Prost trailing Senna in the championship, Senna (now driving for Ferrari) once again hit the McLaren man in what could be called a deliberate accident. No action was taken against the Brazilian and he went on to lift the championship, much to the disbelief of Prost

1985: F1 finally boycotts South Africa over apartheid
Formula 1 has always been a sport reserved for the highest echelons of society but its apparent pro-Apartheid stand had brought the ire of many human-rights activists from around the world. FIFA had expelled the nation in 1960 and so had the IOC in 1970, but F1 continued to hold an annual race at the Kyalami circuit  and despite intense public pressure, didn't bar the African nation till 1985. A vast majority of fans felt that by not removing the South African GP from the calendar for such an extended period of time, spoke volumes about their allegiance. 

1994, 1997 & 2006: Michael Schumacher, the legend with a tarnished reputation
A majority of F1 fans born in the 80s and 90s will instantly associate the sport with one driver: Michael Schumacher. And while nobody can doubt the five-time champion’s talent or competitiveness, the German did have a few on-track moments which have tainted his legacy. At the 1994 Australian GP, he smashed his car into Damon Hill’s, claiming it was “purely unintentional”. Then three years later, a near-identical incident to the one at the Australian GP, Schumacher went into Williams driver Jacques Villeneuve but somehow the Canadian managed to finish the race despite the collision. Schumacher was disqualified that year from the driver’s ranking but his low-blow tactics came to the fore at the 2006 Monaco GP. Fernando Alonso had been impressive in practice and looked certain to clinch pole, but Schumacher literally stopped his car midway, causing a massive traffic jam of sorts which ensured his Spanish opponent could not beat his time. Stewards felt he had cheated for obvious reasons and despite public denials from Schumacher, gave the pole to the rightful recipient, Fernando Alonso.

2007: McLaren-Ferrari Spygate
F1 has a rich and storied history of which many instances can be made to champion the cause of the premier motorsport. The 2007 spying scandal involving McLaren and Ferrari, however, had many hanging their heads in shame in its aftermath. Corruption had permeated the uppermost echelons of McLaren, who were desperate to overhaul their arch-rivals Ferrari by any means unnecessary. A Ferrari chief mechanic handed over substantial data ( from cars to finances to strategies) to McLaren and by a stroke of misfortune for McLaren’s Chief Designer Michael Coughlan, the bubble was burst. A record $100 million fine followed for McLaren but their reputation never truly recovered ever since. 

2005: Indianapolis and the 3-team fiasco
While the current lot race purely on Pirelli tyres, not so long ago Bridgestone and Michellin were the preferred choice for most of F1. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of F1 teams raced on Michellin, with only three racing on Bridgestone (Ferrari, Minardi and Jordan). And after some spectacular tyre failures, Michelin stated they could not guarantee tyre’s safety for more than 10 laps. An incredible admission, which of course did not go down well with F1’s governing body, FIA, who decided against changing the rules to suit Michellin and decided the race would go ahead. A farcical full-race occurred as all teams on Pirelli tyres went back to the pits after the customary formation lap, amid loud boos from unsuspecting fans. Michael Schumacher in his Ferrari, won what was effectively a six-driver race at a canter in what a leading commentator described as “the strangest race I have ever seen.”

2002: Stagegate in Austria
Again Michael Schumacher at the centre of the storm, but this time the blame fell mostly towards his employers: Scuderia Ferrari. Schumacher was conceding for the driver’s title and for a change, his younger teammate, Rubens Barrichello had outperformed him on a race weekend. But with the Brazilian out of the reckoning for the drivers championship, Ferrari gave him clear orders to let his teammate pass him, going against the very instincts of motor racing in the process. 

2008-09: Racism rears its ugly head in Spain
Two years in a row, then McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton was subject to torrent abuse from a section of fans in Spain. First at testing in February 2008 and then at the 2009 Spanish Gp F1’s first ‘black’ champion had to drive around the track with some fans clearly showing that a lack of education persists in the European continent even. With black paint on their faces, these fans disgraced themselves and the sport each time the Briton pitted. While the FIA condemned their actions, the fact that no action was taken rankled many fans.

1982: Williams’ Watergate
One man’s ingenuity is viewed by another as plain and simple cheating. In the capricious world of F1, tweaking a little too much can get you on the wrong side of the administration. That is exactly what Williams decided to do, by putting large water tanks in their cars, emptying them just before the race and then filling them back up immediately afterwards. What that meant was effectively they were running on a much lighter load than compared to their competitors, who were of course, unaware. So the illegal ballast methods were found out and the FIA promptly disqualified Williams and Brabham from the Brazilian GP in which Nelson Piquet Sr and Keke Rosbeg (Father of 2016 champion Nico) had come first and second respectively.

2009: Crashgate in Singapore

The most recent incident in the list, Nelson Piquet Jr’s ‘convenient’ crash at the 2009 Singapore GP seemed a little fishy at first, but when stewards delved deeper, Renault’s massive culpability came to light. Front-runner Fernando Alonso had a poor qualifying session, starting the race from 15th place and was effectively out of the race until his teammate crashed just after he went in for a pit stop. The safety car came out and enabled Alonso to catch up to the rest of the pack and Renault’s further pulled themselves in the quagmire that was fast spreading by sacking Piquet after the race. To which the aggrieved driver responded with a statement clearly stating that “The team told me to crash and that’s exactly what I did.” While Alonso won the race, by the time the revelation saw the light of day, it was too late and some members of Renault’s technical department got banned for their part in the controversy, a massive let off considering the grand scheme of things.