Friday, August 7, 2009

Taj Mahal 'doesn't need a theme park'

The Taj Mahal doesn't need a theme park
Nearly three million people a year are drawn to visit the Taj Mahal Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Edwin Arnold, who was both a poet and an editor of The Daily Telegraph, said that the Taj Mahal was "not a piece of architecture…but the proud passions of an emperor’s love wrought in living stones”. The description has rarely been bettered, and the building itself is unimprovable. Everyone agrees on that.

Everyone except the Agra Development Authority. Aswe reported earlier, the authority believes it can enhance “the visitor experience” at the Taj Mahal by surrounding the great mausoleum with “ropewalks, a suspension bridge, cable cars and a Ferris wheel”.

It’ll never happen. Or won’t it? Not so long ago, we were saying that a proposal for a glass walkway projecting from the lip of the Grand Canyon would never be given the go-ahead. But now it’s there, 4,000ft above the Colorado River, a cantilever bridge built, as the website tellingly puts it, to “withstand an excess of 71 million pounds in weight”. It comes, of course, with a cafĂ©, serving burgers, chicken and barbecued pork – all in the interests of “improving the visitor experience”.

Similar schemes have been mooted, rejected or realised at tourist sights all around the world. Ruins that were already evocative have been tidied up to make them more fitting for camera and for advertising campaign. As the British Arabist Robert Irwin put it, of the Madinat al-Zahra, an Arabian Nights fantasy on the outskirts of Cordoba, "some of the walls are still standing (and such is the progress of archaeology that more walls seem to be still standing each time one visits the place)".

‘Tourist trap’ threat to Taj Mahal, our headline said this morning. The Taj Mahal, has, of course, long been a tourist trap, one of those sights that we can take in only as part of a swarm of camera-clicking visitors. Nearly three million people a year are drawn to visit it. Somehow, 360 years on, it is still surviving the swarm. The threat to it now has less to do with improvement than with greed, a greed that infantilises rather than enhances experience.

OP Jain, the mild-mannered spokesman of the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, has commented that “the people who come to see the Taj are not the kind of people who like to go by ropeway or see it in front of a Ferris wheel”.

That reminded me of a visit I made some years ago to a game lodge in Tsavo West National Park in Kenya. The man behind the inquiries desk told me confidently that I could expect to see a leopard in a tree very close to where he sat pretty well every evening between six and nine. Not just any old tree, but one particular tree – the one to which the staff climbed by ladder at three in the afternoon with a juicy joint of meat to lash to a high fork. It was my first time on safari. I was hoping to see big game, but I also expected to have to work at it a little, to squint and strain for a glimpse of the shyer inhabitants of the bush. And here I was being presented with a big cat drawn by Disney. This wasn’t a leopard that went hunting; it was one that set its watch.

No one goes to Agra for the diversions of an amusement park. People go to see the Taj Mahal. That’s an experience that needs no enhancing.

When can you speak ill of the dead?

Michael Jackson's memorial

By Tom de Castella

It's a month since the death of Michael Jackson - an event which triggered much worshipful coverage of the singer's life. Has enough time passed for a more impartial assessment of the man?

When Michael Jackson died the global media cleared the decks for the King of Pop. But not everyone was reading the script.

"This guy was a pervert," said Peter King, Republican state congressman for New York. "He was a child molester, he was a paedophile, and to be giving this much coverage to him day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country?"

It's a hostage to fortune to say nice things when someone dies. And reacting to Jackson's one was particularly tricky
Sam Leith

The British satirical magazine Private Eye summarised the media's U-turn on Jackson thus: "What you didn't read in all the newspapers: 'Mad Paedophile Dead: Yesterday a 50 year-old mentally ill paedophile died in America.'"

Our traditional response to a person's death can be summed up by the Latin "de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est" - roughly translated "don't speak ill of the dead". But in the information age, where the news keeps on rolling and the notion of deference has long since been replaced by a fascination with fame, how does the old maxim hold up?

A person's death is an opportunity for onlookers to sound magnanimous, sensitive and profound. But also stupid.

When the controversial publisher Robert Maxwell drowned in 1991, the then prime minister, John Major, praised him as a "great character" who had given him "valuable advice".

Maxwell was widely suspected of being a crook and a bully. So when, not long later, it emerged he had stolen hundreds of millions of pounds from the Daily Mirror pension fund, Major's praise looked foolish rather than gracious.

Recently it has become fashionable for politicians to pay tribute to any number of celebrity victims.

Risky talk

Princess Diana's remains the defining celebrity death that set the tone for what was to come. As the feminist commentator Joan Smith put it 10 years after the event: "I came across many people who felt as I did: shocked by the sudden death of a well-known person, especially in such absurd and avoidable circumstances, but not personally involved."

'PUTTING THE BOOT IN'
Jade Goody
When Jade Goody (above) died in March, TV presenter Sir Michael Parkinson said she came to represent 'all that's paltry and wretched about Britain'
He was criticised for his forthright comments
Bishop Jonathan Blake, who presided over Goody's wedding, criticised Sir Michael for 'putting the boot in to a young woman so recently buried'

But to speak out against the tide of grief was risky. "We were immediately perceived to be on 'the other side' - deficient in compassion, sympathy, empathy, whatever you want to call it."

The death of Michael Jackson brings up many parallels. The funeral was moving for his fans but contained moments of extreme irony: "Ever since I was born, daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine," declared Paris Katherine Jackson.

Families are entitled to such pronouncements but these days wise commentators take a nuanced view of someone's death, says the columnist Sam Leith.

"It's a hostage to fortune to say nice things when someone dies. And reacting to this one was particularly tricky. For a long time he's been Wacko Jacko. So he wasn't someone who was unequivocally lauded."

While Jackson was never convicted of child abuse - and was once acquitted - a finger of suspicion continued to hang over him.

Residing in the stars

President Obama's spokesman chose to balance the "spectacular performer" with the private individual whose life had many "sad and tragic" elements. And yet more desperate individuals began losing their heads with the most "egregious self publicising" from celebrities like Uri Geller and Brooke Shields who hadn't seen Jackson for years, says Leith.

We obituarists do argue amongst ourselves - should you out someone's sexuality or mention that they may have committed suicide, for instance?
Bob Chaundy

And of course the politicians joined in. "A young man has left Earth, but now resides in the stars," said Diane Watson, the Democratic representative from California. Meanwhile in the Mother of Parliaments, Labour MP Keith Vaz tabled the following Early Day Motion: "That this House celebrates the life and music of Michael Jackson; commends the role his music has played… notes that he sold an estimated 750 million records worldwide and won 13 Grammy awards… and hopes that his legacy will endure."

Leith believes politicians like Vaz make a "category error" when they posture in this way. "They appropriate cultural events. You wouldn't really expect Michael Jackson to ratify the Countryside Act 2000 so why should parliament say what a jolly good dancer he was?"

Dr Johnson famously remarked: "In lapidary inscriptions a man is not upon oath" - in other words, feel free to embroider a bit when paying tribute to a man's life. But Bob Chaundy, former obituaries editor at BBC News says the days of the slavishly affectionate portrait no longer apply.

"You try to create as true and full account of that person's life as you can. So with Michael Jackson you couldn't just talk about the music - you had to mention the allegations of paedophilia. This is obituary, not hagiography."

Miserable, judgemental

But an obituary needs to tell a story first and foremost. "You can't ignore the fact that he sold more records than any other artist. If he was just a child molester we wouldn't be writing about him."

However, the boundaries of what can and can't be said are not always clear cut.

Walter Cronkite
Walter Cronkite: an obituary in the Guardian last week pulled no punches

"We obituarists do argue amongst ourselves - should you out someone's sexuality or mention that they may have committed suicide, for instance?"

The Reverend Tim Sledge, a vicar in Romsey, Hampshire, believes society has a confused reaction to death: "The media portrayal of a life has almost become like an autopsy."

Sledge conducts 100 funeral services a year and says his primary task is to help people come to terms with their loss.

"One of the ways to do that is to look back at a person's life and celebrate it. You need to steer a careful course, deal with it honestly but don't obsess about the bad parts or it becomes a cesspit."

He admits there have been times, researching funeral subjects, when it seems nobody has a good word to say about the deceased.

"With one chap wherever I turned, people said he was miserable, judgemental, anti-social. I thought, 'My goodness, what can I say?'

"So I started his tribute with: 'Let's be honest, he could be a pretty cantankerous so-and-so.' And you could feel this palpable sense of relief spread around the church as people realised I wasn't just going through the motions."

Honesty is crucial then, but he warns against concentrating on someone's flaws:

"I think we've made a national sport of pointing out people's faults. The purpose of a funeral is not to be critical. It needs to be a balance of honesty and generosity."


Below is a selection of your comments.

I have never subscribed to the belief that death automatically confers sainthood. If a person was obnoxious in life, death did not change that. It is the ultimate hypocrisy to suddenly gush over how wonderful a person was when you couldn't tolerate them in life and, thinking about my own delightful family, usually means you have one eye on their will. Tact and diplomacy may be needed to spare the feelings of family, but a mouth kept firmly shut is probably the best policy although I concede that this could be difficult if it is a celebrity and the rest of the media are jumping on the ratings bandwagon.
Christina, Parkstone

I agree with the Rev Sledge. It is too easy to pick someone's life apart. We still suffer from this good guy/bad guy Hollywood syndrome whereas the truth is that we all have things we're ashamed of and all have redeeming qualities. Most of us would like to have some of our redeeming qualities remembered after our death, not just our failures.
James Hodson, Montgenevre, France

While they are alive, they have the opportunity to refute allegations, sue for slander or even change their lifestyle. Once someone is dead, they are defenceless so attacking them is seen as cowardly.
Mark Lambert, Mildenhall, England

A funeral is for the survivors: plain and simple. Those children of Michael Jackson are the ones who will need all the love and support of their community. Who are we to take something, twist it around, and come up with something that doesn't match their perceptions of their father. The same goes with ANY child who loses a parent, no matter what age. If we cannot allow for the POSSIBILITY of good as well as the bad to be involved in a person's life, then WHY are we being one-sided? Life is not made up of "black and white" aspects, but rather a multitude of colours. It is up to each of us to make up our own mind what colours a person's life's actions are composed.
Darlene Forsman, Portland, OR, US

Michael Jackson was found NOT GUILTY yet everyone has an opinion on whether this takes away from his musical legacy. He is and will always be bigger than Elvis and the Beatles combined. Can you not let the poor guy rest in peace? The fact that the British even think is OK to talk ill of the dead says more about the UK and the British people. What is left to celebrate of the UK when we put down the dead?
Grako, Leicester

If we're going to judge someone, forget popularity and glitter, ask; Did they make the world better? Did they genuinely improve another person? Did they perform any genuinely altruistic benevolent act? Did they accumulate wealth and fame for the benefit of others? If the answer to any of the above is yes, then they have done something worth mentioning. Otherwise stop bothering me about them.
Andy Wilcock, Tunbridge Wells

Throughout human history, people have eulogized the dead. In fact, I know no culture that has no eulogy. In many cultures, it is believed that saying good things about the dead helps the spirit to depart in peace and into a resting place, otherwise it roams about, meaning it becomes a restless ghost. There is nothing wrong in saying good thing about the dead as long as it is truthful. The hash truth is always left to history and historians. Everyone should remember that fact whether we are talking about Michael Jackson, Elvis, George Washington, John Kennedy, Jade Goody, Walter Cronkite, or General Patton.
Bode Olakanmi, Cincinnati, USA

While the media and his fans were fawning about the supposedly great artist (who hadn't released anything decent in years), the rest of us were sending each other a battery of tasteless jokes about what a weirdo Jackson was. Strange how the latter never got reported.

Actually the first I heard of his death was when a mate texted me a joke about it.
Neil Macdonald, Manchester uk

I'm glad this article has been written as it echoes what my friends and I have been talking about recently, how people jump on a bandwagon when someone dies, regardless of how they were perceived when they were alive. Before Jade Goody died the media labelled her a racist but as soon as she was diagnosed with cancer she became the nation's favourite (I cannot remember being consulted on this!). Blame the media for this fickle use of celebrities to sell papers or magazines.
James, London, UK

Finally! It is such a relief to read a note like this one, where facts are weighed against sentiments. No one is perfect and in the end, the obituary should be a practical and concise summary of someone's life, not a blind praising document.
Adrian

Michael Jackson didn't cure illness, stop famine or heal the sick. He didn't even invent the Moonwalk. His one true claim to historical importance is as the first African American performer to conquer the mainstream of entertainment... but he was hardly the messianic figure that he's currently being depicted as.
Stephen Saul, Brighton

I can't believe how quick the text message 'jokes' start arriving on my phone as soon as someone notable has died. Nothing seems to be off limits either, I admit to selectively forwarding them to friends I know will get the irony of 'how bad is this?, what odious little troll dreamed that up?
David Reilly, Loughborough, England

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Sri Lankan team lived through 25 minutes of terror




New Delhi: The beleaguered Sri Lanka players had a near death experience while on their way to resuming the second test match at the historic Gaddafi stadium in Lahore.

At 0845 hrs IST, barely a few hundred meters away from the Gaddafi stadium, the touring Sri Lankan team bus was ambushed by terrorists armed with assault rifles, grenades and even a rocket launcher. For 25 minutes, as the terrified team crawled on the floor of the bus, the terrorists threw grenades and fired their automatic guns at the bus. Policemen protecting the team fired back at the attackers but all the attackers escaped in the chaos.

All the Sri Lankan players escaped major injury but ace batsmen Thilan Samaraweera was shot in the leg and debut opener Tharanga Paranavitana in the chest.

Reserve umpire Ehsaan Raza was also critically injured.

Captain Jayawardane, Vice Captain Sangakara, pace spearhead Vaas and Spinner Ajanta Mendis sustained injuries as well.

Javaid Gavdede, the surgeon who treated the injured players said, “We received 12 patients, two of whom are Sri Lankan players Samaraweera and Tharanga. Samaraweera was wounded in the leg and Tharanga in the chest. By the grace of God both are in stable conditions and we have treated them."

The policemen providing security for the cricketers were not as lucky. Five of them died in the gun battle which also killed two pedestrians.

The escaping terrorists left behind their weapons including bombs that were defused later. This is a clear indication that the attack would have been much bigger in magnitude if they had been able to execute it fully.

Mohd Ali, a police constable said, “Suddenly heavy firing broke out. I was afraid and started praying.”

The Lankans owe their life to the wits of the bus driver, who rushed them to safety through a hail of bullets.

Mehar Mohammad Khalil. The bus driver said, “Just as we approached the Gulbarga main roundabout in a cool manner, suddenly a hail of bullets began coming onto us.”

For the Lankans, what would normally have been yet another run on the Gaddafi greens, was a dash for the safety of a flight back home.

The emergency evacuation of the team in a military helicopter marked a grim but definite end to Sri Lanka's tour of Pakistan.

Terrorist attack on Sri Lankan cricketers at Lahore

'Cricket won't be played in Pakistan in the foreseeable future'

Cricinfo staff

March 3, 2009

Reactions to the attack on the Sri Lankan team in Lahore, which has put in doubt Pakistan's status as an international sporting venue.


"The security provided to the Sri Lankan team was ten times less than what is given to interior ministry adviser Rehman Malik": Imran Khan © AFP

"It's very unfortunate that this has happened. Everything had gone on very well until this morning, but it just goes to show that nothing is as it seems. I don't regret coming here to play cricket because that's what we have been doing all our lives. That is our profession. But I regret this incident. All we want to do now is to go back home to our families, get back home and be safe."
Kumar Sangakkara, Sri Lankan vice-captain

"Things will have to change dramatically in Pakistan in my opinion if any of the games are to be staged there."I think that international cricket in Pakistan is out of the question until there is a very significant change, a regime change I guess."
David Morgan, ICC president

"It is pretty, pretty serious and it is very obvious that the landscape and the thinking has changed dramatically. We are going to have to re-evaluate what we do and where Pakistan plays its cricket."
Haroon Lorgat, ICC chief executive

"First of all I apologise to the Sri Lankan team for they toured Pakistan despite huge pressure. I strongly condemn the security provided to the Sri Lankan team because it was ten times less than what is given to Interior ministry adviser Rehman Malik. I think from the governor of Punjab to police officials, all must be made accountable - how did the gunmen openly shoot at a high-profile team? Foreign teams have already been refusing to tour us and this will hurt Pakistan cricket badly. I don't know what will happen to the World Cup 2011, its tough to say anything right now."
Imran Khan, former Pakistan captain, and head of Tehrik-e-Insaaf party

"Thank God we decided to leave our hotel five minutes after the Sri Lankans. God forbid, had both buses been moving together it could have been catastrophic. I talked with Ajantha Mendis, Muttiah Muralitharan, Mahela Jayawardene and Thilan Samaraweera after the incident and told them the entire nation was sorry for what had happened."
Younis Khan, Pakistan captain

"It is a major, major shock. Teams were already unwilling to come to Pakistan. This will end the game for the next couple of years, including the hosting rights of the World Cup."
Wasim Akram, former Pakistan captain

"It is a big tragedy. Something like this should never have happened. We talk about foreign teams being provided top security but after what happened today I don't see any team coming to Pakistan for a while. Even the International Cricket Council (ICC) will now find it hard to allow the World Cup matches to be held in Pakistan. It is gone."
Waqar Younis, former Pakistan fast bowler

"It looks like a well-thought and planned assault. This [incident] is going to affect Pakistan cricket in the future. This is not to say that cricket will stop. The world will have to stay united and fight terrorism. I hope they just don¹t say they won¹t tour Pakistan. If we do that we will only support the terrorists' cause."
Javed Miandad, former Pakistan captain

"Pakistan's image will be hit and only time will tell how much damage has been done to Pakistan cricket. The World Cup too might be affected. Preparations for the World Cup will start much before 2011 and no country would want to come now to Pakistan. We will know the extent of damage to our cricket in some time. I am worried where Pakistan will get a chance to play, not only in Pakistan but outside as well."
Inzamam-ul-Haq, former Pakistan captain

"I am shocked, and very, very sad. It was an honest belief we held [that sporting teams would not be targeted by terrorists], and it is tragic that this has happened. Cricket won't be played in Pakistan for the forseeable future. Pakistan look like they will become a wandering cricket team now. They will be playing at neutral venues, because you can guarantee that there won't be games there. Obviously, there is no chance of the Champions Trophy or the World Cup going ahead there."
Geoff Lawson, former Pakistan coach

"It's very frightening that for the first time a cricket team appears to be the specific target of terrorist action. That's never happened before - all previous incidents have been about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is a very different proposition and I think just a very frightening one for world cricket."
Justin Vaughan, New Zealand Cricket chief executive

"A lot of the concerns we raised during the Champions Trophy have unfortunately come home to roost. There were a number of factors we considered, including the global exposure an attack on an international sporting team could have. This, unfortunately, is the realisation of many of the things we thought, and it is a terrible way to find out."
Reg Dickason, the security consultant contracted by the ECB and CA

"Our way of life and our favourite pastime has been targeted. We have to get united and fight the terrorists. The civil society, sportsmen have to wake up and raise their voice. Younis Khan's triple ton garnered positive headlines across cricketing world. People had started to come in to watch and we were hoping that cricket would revive in Pakistan. Then this has happened."
Rameez Raja, former Pakistan captain, and commentator

"I was quite shocked, quite blank. It's sad that sportspersons are attacked. People say sport is not targeted, but you are not immune to it. Once a guy decides to attack the cricketers, we are not tough targets. Cricketers roam about freely on tours, so you have to be aware."
Mahendra Singh Dhoni, India captain

"At the moment it's the safety of the people hurt [that is the main concern]. We've got some good friends in the Sri Lankan team, the Indians are also close to a lot of them. But I suppose it's tough for Pakistan cricket to come back from this, for no fault of their own."
Daniel Vettori, New Zealand captain

Thursday, January 1, 2009

2008 The year that was - India

India in 2008: The year that was

 

By Madhu Soman

MUMBAI (Reuters) - Yet another year is coming to an end and independent India’s idea of being a republic is a year older. But is it any wiser? On many counts, 2008 tested India and the manner in which it confronted the challenges.

It was a year which saw the Manmohan Singh government face some of the toughest questions in its 4-year rule.

For that matter, some of the questions were directed at the people, the polity and the nation itself, which is still on edge after horrific images of a militant rampage on Mumbai made headlines around the world in late November.

It was a promising start to the year with the economy growing at well above 8 pct and the Sensex touching a staggering 21,000 points in late January.

Inflation was the only worry as global crude prices were near the 100-dollar mark.

For its part, the govt was confident about handling inflation and announced a 60,000-crore rupee debt relief package for farmers which became the highlight of the annual budget.

But global crude prices showed no signs of moderation and India’s inflation too crossed the double digit mark.

What added to the govt’s problems was pressure from its coalition allies. The Communist parties pulled out over India’s historic civilian nuclear deal with the United States and the govt’s survival was put to the ultimate test.

But parliamentary politics in India dipped to a new low when wads of cash were whipped out in the well of the house. Opposition MPs claimed money was used to buy support. The allegations did not stick and the Manmohan Singh govt survived the trust vote.

But the problems were mounting. The global subprime crisis took its toll and the stock markets started crashing as FIIs pulled out billions of dollars. The Sensex has lost more than 60 percent this year and is now hovering around the 10,000 mark, making it one of the worst performers in the Asian equity scene.

The economy too was no longer insulated and growth estimates for one of the world’s fastest growing economies have been revised downwards. Multi-billion dollar stimulus packages have been announced and an aggressive rate-cut campaign has been initiated by the Reserve Bank of India. But economists and analysts say more needs to be done to salvage India as the rest of the world sets off on a road to recession.

Corporate India too had its share of highs and lows. While Tata wowed everyone with the Nano, the world’s cheapest car, the company was forced to move its plant out of West Bengal thereby delaying the car’s roll-out.

Investor confidence was on a razor’s edge throughout the year. While India’s top private lender ICICI’s share price dipped more than 70 pct as concerns arose over the health of its books, IT major Satyam Computer Services faced some tough questions about corporate governance after a botched attempt to buy two of its sister firms for $1.6 billion.

Indian airlines struggled too amid soaring fuel costs and dwindling passenger numbers. Carriers like Jet Airways faced staff ire over efforts to downsize and survive.

More than anything else, it was the internal security situation that took a turn for the worse. Hundreds of lives were lost as a series of blasts shook various Indian cities.

If the bombs in Bangalore, Ahmedabad, New Delhi and Guwahati were blamed on Islamist militants, the needle of suspicion in the Malegaon blasts pointed to Hindu extremists. A serving officer of the Indian army is still being interrogated.

But all the violence seemed only a dress rehearsal for what turned out to be the most audacious terror strike in the history of independent India.

Armed assailants held India’s financial capital hostage for nearly three days. 179 people were killed as many of Mumbai’s iconic landmarks including the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Taj Mahal hotel and the Oberoi-Trident came under fire.

The lone surviving attacker said he came from Pakistan and New Delhi has put Islamabad on notice. A worried world is watching and urging restraint as reports emerge of heightened military activity along the border separating the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

The man on the street is anxious too. There’s been a clarion call for civilian activism. They want accountability, not just hollow assurances from the political leadership.

Heads did roll. Union home minister Shivraj Patil was asked to go. The Maharashtra CM and home minister were sacked too.

But did it placate the common man? Amid all the tension, five Indian states went to polls and the results showed that development was a bigger election issue than terror. It was a lesson that the main opposition party BJP learnt the hard away.

Its “Congress is soft on terror” campaign failed to win public approval as it tried to mount an assault on the Congress-led coalition ahead of the 2009 general elections.

The biggest surprise of all was the assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir which witnessed more than 50 per cent voter turnout.

The turnaround in public opinion comes less than six months after the state was up in arms over the Amarnath land row, some thing which led some commentators in New Delhi to even question the worthiness of holding on to Kashmir.

So, does this mean that what had started off a memorable year will turn out to be one best forgotten?

Well, if you look at the sporting arena, it’s actually been a good year for India.

The Indian cricket team started off winning the tri-series in Australia. The success of the inaugural IPL 20/20 league reaffirmed India’s pre-eminence as one of most powerful forces in the world of cricket. India capped its season with home series wins over both World champions Australia and England and many Indians now hope India can actually become no.1 in world cricket.

2008 was also a year that saw Saurav Ganguly leave in a blaze of glory while others like Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid did enough to let a demanding but adoring public know that they remain a force to reckon with.

New heroes like Gautam Gambhir and Ishant Sharma emerged, and there was success for other Indian sportsmen too.

Abhinav Bindra made the nation proud winning India’s first individual Gold in shooting at the Beijing Olympics.

While boxers like Vijender Kumar packed a punch, Sushil Kumar grappled both inner fear and pressure to add a bronze from the wrestling mat and make it one of India’s most memorable campaigns in the world’s biggest sporting spectacle.

Jeev Milkha Singh winning the Asian Golf’s Order of Merit and shuttler Saina Nehwal’s meteoric rise in the badminton world brought India more cheer.

In the field of literature, India's Aravind Adiga won the Man Booker Prize for his novel 'The White Tiger', a dark tale about the son of a rickshaw puller who dreams of escaping poverty.

It was only the third time in the Booker's 40-year history that a debut novel won the award. But the win also raised the question whether only the darker side of contemporary India appealed to Western readers.

So, it has indeed been a rollercoaster year for the country.

But what about 2009? What’s in store for India and Indians?