Delhi by Heart

Book Review: Non-fiction/ Delhi by heart by Raza Rumi, Harper Collins, 322p; Rs399 (Paperback)

As Raza is Rumi, so ploy of narrower gratifications should normally evade his identity. Surprisingly (for conformity between author and editor), the cover of Delhi by heart presents this most impartial and genuine self-narration on the city Delhi as—‘Impressions of a Pakistani Traveler’. In actual, the author was never alien to this city—as like many of us, he too could see beyond the boundary without falling in guise of extreme limiting factors—such as nationality and uncomfortable equations among the two nieghbouring nations.

Like insiders of this city, his comfort level is more competent with the old parts of Delhi than its shining hotels and sprawling urban extensions, which tirelessly ostracize wisdom and release endless hallucination of modernism. Clearly, this can’t be confronted by wimps—praying to be separated from the load of past and oddness of present.

Still there is no dearth of alibis from the people and machinery that make the old urban structures, marginalised and dying slow death. Sadly, the pattern of certain kind of living too diminishes with the demise of symbols. Delhi is catching up that pattern blindly—so it’s naturally justified, if majority of its residents know Chirag Delhi by a nearby over-bridge than for its historic significance.

The days are not far when Nizamuddin Dargah would be better known as a landmark to reach Hotel Oberoi—and Kutub Minaar as picnic spot for absentee landlord type scholars from western part of the earth, living in the farmhouses of M.G.Road. This road ends Delhi, hence civilisation and brings Gurgaon—an anti-thesis of former. This book has no taste to travail any uncivilized roads.

Raza’s leaning with the northern India, as he confesses in writing—grown-up by listening the pre-partition stories from elders at home. That part of the land was once his home—he got that sense and also pain for not being able to see it freely. This happened with so many people, we have various accounts on that but those were from earlier generation. Author leads the debate here, as he represents those who didn’t see the trauma of partition though felt its darkness even after decades.

As he shares, his first visit took place to see his forefathers’ land—and in the course of the time, his bond of sharing developed with fellow Indian students in LSE during University days and later working in Multilateral Agencies, being part of Pakistan’s elite Civil Services.

Years back, he moved from the service to become primarily a writer, with free pen and conscience. That made him writing this meticulously researched and well involved book on Delhi—a city that was in want of authentic looking back on its fading edifices and cultural tradition.

As a columnist too, Raza has been writing about Delhi, its people, who are his friends. And on different side—he is the person, whose writing infuse hope from Pakistan. He can speak of his mind, for making the ills obvious, and thus less harmful. However, the establishment running Pakistan like a half-baked democracy has no intention to stop its slumbering for listening rational commentaries.

Raza likes Delhi—and this city reciprocates with him in same warm way. This book marks it better than any other additional attribute. He has remembered his Delhiwaala and they are reading this book and loving it. Even in conservative estimation, I see this book reaching in ‘essential reading list’ on Delhi. This solely based on the authenticity, the book upholds.

Delhi’s eternal characteristics defies partitioning views—so compilation of its good and bad can be sensibly done only by those not pursuing many goals at a time. That stands opposite with most of the historians, claiming to have expertise on this restless city. Raza Rumi’s Delhi by heart is an important addition to the literatures on Delhi and for delinking the concentration of history writing from royalty to people. In either or both ways—the book will command a wide readership, from across the sections.

If travelling can enrich entitlement with the places—its articulation could make history, simple to be remembered. We can believe it, if not overlooking a remarkable book like this one.
-Atul K Thakur
Email:summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kashmir Walla on October23,2013)

Too early to drop one’s guard

India must work closely with the newly-elected Nawaz Sharif Government in Pakistan. But, while it must explore enhancing relations in areas of trade, New Delhi must remain vigilant all the time.

Mr Nawaz Sharif’s return to power and his exuberant shower of constructive announcements offer hope, both to the Pakistani people as well to those in India wanting to improve relations with Pakistan. But India has had a mixed experience dealing with democratic regimes in Islamabad — at the start, things appear to be promising but suddenly the relationship turns sour. This was the case with Mr Sharif’s previous stint as Prime Minister, when friendly summits and goodwill trips to Pakistan by the NDA leadership were reciprocated with heavy infiltration in Kashmir.

Also, Mr Sharif, groomed under the cunning shadow of former President Zia-ul-Haq initially had little problem with limited military-political interface within the Pakistani establishment. His perception changed, however, after his Army chief Pervez Musharraf’s coup d'état in the post-Kargil days. While in exile, Mr Sharif has supposedly become more gentle, practical and reliable. So, he exudes hope to the crowds in Pakistan as well as to the Congress-led UPA regime in New Delhi, which has no strategic foreign policy for the South Asian neighbourhood.

But let us not forget that the root cause of pessimism in Pakistan lies in the fact that this country knows not how to live with rational actions. Today, Pakistan exists somewhere between the grim world of Saadat Hasan Manto and Faiz Ahmad Faiz.

These two literary greats had witnessed the making of Pakistan, and knew the country better than others and much before it was overrun by fundamentalists. A country created on religious lines, and also a product of the tussle between the elitist leaders of the Muslim League and those of the Congress, Pakistan has never been able to outgrow the complexes attached to its birth.

The history of democracy in Pakistan is blurry and replete with instances of continuous military interference, which till date distort political processes. Sixty-three years after its birth, Pakistan is far from how its founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah, an astute politician, had envisioned it. And even though a small segment of progressive Pakistanis may like to hold on to Jinnah’s vision, it is, for all practical purposes, now lost.

Its international borders notwithstanding, Pakistan’s alliances with China and the US have already compromised its sovereignty. Driven by their imperial compulsions, these countries use Pakistan to maintain their grip on the South Asian region. And this is obvious to Pakistani leaders, civil society activists and journalists.

The other factor that defines Pakistan’s geo-strategic policies is Afghanistan. The ground realities from that country plague Pakistan on a real time basis even as one powerful class of Pakistanis reap the benefits of instability. This class knows how important it is to keep stirring the pot — as, in a political order that is driven by force rather than constitutional values, it is troubled times that offer better strategic dividend than peace times.

India has the burden of history to bear when it comes to its foreign policy vis-à-vis Pakistan. However, New Delhi has often failed miserably to carry the load. This maybe in part due to the inadequacies of those who have sought to shape India’s policy towards Pakistan in recent years. Many of these so-called ‘Pakistan experts’ in New Delhi have practically no on-ground exposure to that country and only limited understanding of the historical linkages between India and Pakistan. They look upon Pakistan as a project that they need to handle. This impedes any deep and long-term study of the Pakistani problem in India.

Even New Delhi’s diplomatic corps, from the IIC to the Gymkhana generation, has failed to make its mark when it comes to strategic thinking with respect to Pakistan. Yet, India cannot afford to remain indifferent to this neighbour. As for now, India should keep playing safe with Pakistan. New Delhi may allow for an enhanced trade engagement with Pakistan, for instance. More importantly, it should support Mr Sharif so as to keep hardliners at bay in Islamabad. A fresh round of goodwill summits may also be encouraging for bilateral relations.

But through it all, India must remain vigilant. It must not be caught off-guard like it was in the 1990s when the then Prime Minister was indeed working to make a long-lasting improvement in India’s relations with Pakistan. Of course, both countries are in a different state now — this is especially true in Pakistan where the people have chosen the ballot over the bullet. Hopefully, Mr Sharif too will stay democratic and the Pakistani military will be cut to size by him. At this juncture, New Delhi should work closely with Islamabad for a positive turn in bilateral ties but while keeping its border security mechanism firmly in place.

-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer on June18,2013)

Beyond borders

Many multilateral cooperation platforms have eluded smaller nations, contradicting their own rationale for existence. Nepal is no exception to this phenomenon and has badly missed out on chances to carve out a position to deal with major bilateral issues in South Asia and beyond. The country’s long democratic transition has made its standing even more precarious.

Before 2001, Asia had two distinct royalties—Nepal and Bhutan. With the unnatural ending of the partially feudal legal throne in Nepal, the country ushered in a complex web of mismanaged political arrangements. Later, the prominent advent of the Maoists and Madhes-based political parties were in the right spirit of the times but later developments have shown their inefficiency in dealing with the cores of polity and diplomacy.

Living under an unjustified ‘big brother syndrome’ and making impractical moves for trilateral initiatives have broken down Nepal’s conventional edge vis-à-vis its relation with India. Prachanda’s latest visit to New Delhi was primarily seeking Indian confidence for the Chinese presence back home. This was a sort of blunder, though it was surprisingly overlooked by the Indian side.

Nepal’s external policy should be directed by its own self-interest instead of excuses. The political establishment in Kathmandu should reckon that the diplomatic engagements of two almost equals—India and China—do not happen on a single front but on many counts. Among them, the most formidable is economic ties. Li Keqiang’s first foreign trip as prime minister to India was aimed at settling the border dispute and boosting economic ties. Straight after India, he flew to Pakistan, and total results of his visit have proved abysmal.

China cannot simply throw off the burden of its past. It has a few allies to date and Nepal should not have irrational expectations from China. In the lexicon of Nepal’s political economy, trade should be given extra attention. Trade and diplomacy must be the mainstays of external policy. There is no reason why Nepal should distract from this fundamental understanding. The hyped ploy of breaking conventions has given little positive outcome so far. The lack of any political stalwart is another cause
of concern; the country is missing a pacifier like Girija Prasad Koirala like never before.

New efforts are being made to hold Constituent Assembly elections in November, which will be a great test of the political parties en masse as there is great disenchantment among the populace for their false promises. People’s representatives need to come to terms with the fact that the masses are only concerned with leading the country out of the present mess. The internal atmosphere will shape Nepal’s external policy; so clarity over this would do well for the country’s future course.

In South Asia, Nepal is situated strategically to carry forward its independent stature. Despite the gloom and doom over the last two decades, Nepalis in general have endorsed democracy. This is a sort of accomplishment, as modern ideas and aspirations are routed through such welcome changes. If there is balance on the political home turf, it will be much easier for Nepal to claim its deserved position in the world.

There is no tailor-made solution for a firm footing in external matters except for being internally strong while chasing difficult targets externally. Relying less on theoretical paradigms and taking a more practical approach would make foreign policy maneuvering a more informed exercise. As a sovereign state, the boldness of Nepal’s action should display its sovereignty. Unlike China or India, it has never earned the ire of cunning colonial motives. This is a reality and not bound to be changed.Thus, it allows Nepalis to take pride in its non-interfering nationalistic pedigree.

In the present ideal-deficient time, bilateralism is the order of the day for nations. Hence, Nepal too should define its priorities accordingly. Among the most important changes, it should learn to look beyond India and China as the world is much bigger. With a changed mindset and a mature leadership, Nepal has the capacity to draw resources from beyond.

However, India will stay its closest ally, even when Nepal expands its presence across the globe. China has a different angle on seeing the world but it is a very formidable force in itself, which India has learnt since 1947. Nepal, for a while, can learn from India’s follies in the 1962 war. It is time for a course correction in Nepal.
Atul K Thakur
Email:summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kathmandu Post on July05,2013)

The Unfinished Memoirs of a Complete Past!

Book Review: Non-fiction/The Unfinished Memoirs by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Penguin/Viking, 323 pp; Rs699 (Hardback)
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s diaries, on a very important phase of twentieth century, came into the light in 2004 and now have been compiled as a book in the English. These memoirs were written during the prison days of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, when he was a state prisoner in the epochmaking years: 1967-1969. His autobiography begins with him recalling his days as a student activist during the movement, aimed for the creation of Pakistan in the early 1940’s. Further, the book covers his experiences of the Bengali language movement, besides offering new insights on the initial struggle of the Bangladeshi independence movement and self-rule. The major events and political planks up to the time of struggle for democratic rights in 1955 are given prominence in Mujib’s memoirs.

His notebooks have some remarkable details and it is hardly surprising since he was catalyst behind the birth of Bangladesh. His autobiography, though doesn’t enable a reader to judge the status of his convictions but at a different level, gives enough space to introspect those early conditions that came into existence after the creation of Pakistan and not very lately, with the birth of another nation-Bangladesh. Troubled and impatient, yet that was a very interesting timeframe in the Indian subcontinent. Mujib’s autobiography, remotely distant from any soft ends, leads to the unusually abnormal past that affected the geography and psyche of south Asia.

Though compelled by bitter circumstances, patriots of highest order were not less accountable for carrying out the procession of partition. Indeed, Pakistan was born as the outcome of those unfortunate tussles, but the creation of Bangladesh, was more the result of Muslim League’s failure to live up to Jinnah’s dream of ‘working democracy’, than any other factors. This book establishes some vital facts, such as, why more than India’s role, the idea of Bangladesh materialised under the unrelenting failures of Muslim League’s leadership which maintained ‘disconnect’ with the people of East Bengal for long time.

The top Muslim League leaders were appearing more as the representatives of the party than people. Institutionally, democracy was functional in Pakistan, since it became a nation state but its liberal attributes were missing and that caused impractical maneuverings on socio-political fronts. Later on things went the wrong way and progresses were not as normal as desired. Shockingly, a leading Muslim League leader, Liaquat Ali Khan, was too not ready in any case to accept the existence of other parties, apart from Muslim League-his speech underlines it more clearly…
“I have always said, rather it has always been my firm belief, that the existence of the League, not only the existence of the League, but its strength is equal to the existence and strength of Pakistan. So far as I am concerned, I had decided at the very beginning, and reaffirm it today, that I have always considered myself the Prime Minister of the League. I never regarded myself as the Prime Minister chosen by the members of the Constituent Assembly.” (Page-144)

And from the opposite side, Suharawardy and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was not less vocal towards the chasm, the new nation was running with. This statement of Mujibur Rahman highlights the geographical/cultural divide Pakistan affronted those days…
“I am from East Bengal, a land where one can go through an entire winter with only a light blanket. Here you have to wear layer upon layer of warm clothes and wrap yourself in blanket after blanket. And yet it is so cold that sleep evades you despite the layers of clothes and the blankets!” (Page-149)

In its part, the Muslim League leaders failed to understand the repercussion posed in downsizing the leadership from East Bengal, on which, the discomfort was being felt by culturally distinct and much reserve natured Bengali speaking population. Most surprisingly, Jinnah too was unaware of the truth, holding that Pakistan’s way ahead was not rosy and as easy, thought out by few in high degree of complacency. More than an assumption, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman got the political height in ‘isolation’ that the Islamabad’s bureaucratic machinery allowed him in unmindful.

Post 1947, the whole political processes were being controlled by the distorted aspirations of political elites. Then in Pakistan-two nations were making strides. Marginalization of real issues for the deviant political policies harmed in general and caused for the condition that led to the brutal partition and immense shock to the people at both sides of the border. Later, similar fear haunted in 1971, when hawkish situation again made people the easiest target of irrational power play.The birth of Bangladesh happened under the ‘guise of cultural isolation’ of East Bengal’s population, but the real reasons were more political.

This was clear to few, as the euphoria was at sky high and Mujib had so far established himself an unchallengeable authority in Bangladesh. But his edge couldn’t sustain for long. Though initially, Mujib received an unprecedented response on his call to move for the economic freedom by uniting the entire nation. The economy picked up rapidly. Production increased substantially. The prices of essential came down sharply. With greater hope, the new conditions for inclusive growth were near the reality but all ended shortly!

On 25January 1975, the country switched to the Presidential system of government and as expected, Mujib took over the charge as first President of Bangladesh. But not very late, in August 1975, he was assassinated in Dhaka along with his family (barring two daughters)-that immediately caused for Martial law in the country. The basic democratic rights were withheld. Thereafter, the politics of killing, camps and conspiracy were revitalized. Nine years later, almost similar scene was replicated in India too after the assassination of Indira Gandhi-in both the countries, innocents’ people were seen at margin in those ugly days, on the wake of violent reprisals from authority!

With straight talking and revelations, an autobiography makes its place prominently established. This book broadly qualifies in that category with its less ‘conformist’ stand-it allows readers to engage on the pages without any epistemological load. In simple words, Mujib’s biography tells the history of making of a nation, not of farce.

In the wish lists of serious readers on modern south Asian history, any miraculous turn out of Nehru and Jinnah’s hidden autobiographies would make the picture of regional politics much comprehensive than it has been over the decades with feeble documentary sources. More than the technicalities of wardrobe, theirs descendant can produce anything ‘exclusive’ on the passed fate of subcontinental history!

Atul Kumar Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kashmir Monitor, dated on November11th, 2012)

Nepal needs genuine democracy

It's alarming to see that the Himalayan country has no real economic roadmap in place. Industries are either being shut down or they are stagnating. Meanwhile, politics is being shamelessly played out.

In a recent quantum leap, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the constituents of United Democratic Madhesi Front and other Madhesi and Janjati parties came together to form a Federal Democratic Republican Alliance, with the professed aim of moving towards ‘a Constitution with federalism, and federalism with identity’. Unfortunately, this hardly presents any positive signal to end the political uncertainty in that country.

The FDRA’s aim is to put pressure on the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) to accept an identity-based restructuring of the state before the polls and then go in for an electoral partnership. Altogether, this alliance has done little more than angering the Opposition and preventing any potential thaw in relations.

The present state of Nepal’s politics allows for such an unusual condominium of parties that make little sense when it comes to resolving the greater political mess in the country. The overblown ambitions of the political class nullify the earlier efforts of democratic experiments. The current state of instability in Nepal seems to be more the result of the behavioural recklessness of politicians rather than the consequence of a celebrated political transition.

Undoubtedly, such pacts and agreements among politicians who are under pressure to survive have pushed governance issues to an all-time low. When the roads were not all rubble and 12-hour-long power cuts were not the norm, things were different. The people of Nepal had hope in the new generation of politicians and their brand of democratic politics.

For instance, the Maoists, until recently, were viewed differently as they focused on inland development and did not wish for Nepal to continue as a dumping ground of imported goods. However, their economic vision has been lost mid-way. Today, the work done by the present Maoist led-Government, headed by the once ideologically pure Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, is no less disappointing than any of his predecessors.

The wider connect among the people of India and Nepal has remained the cornerstone of ties between these two countries; the bond here is simply unmatchable. Still, the current level of engagement between these two countries is less satisfactory than it used to be in earlier times. From the Indian side, there is need to limit reliance on the diplomatic mission in Kathmandu for all negotiations, most of which should actually be carried out by Ministerial level delegations.

Also, the inadequate response from India in diplomatic engagement has kept Nepal on the margins; in this regard, there is need for course-correction. Greater people-to-people exchanges will help minimise anti-India feelings among a large section of the Nepali population. In the recent past, India has played the role of a cautious yet concerned neighbour, with respect to Nepal’s fluctuating political scenario. But to stop the vendetta of misguided radicals, India should deal with the situation in a proactive manner and without any biases.

Since 1996, Nepal has witnessed a series of troubling developments. Primary among them was the outbreak of the highly violent Maoist insurgency and later the royal massacre of 2001 which pushed the nation into an age of uncertainty. King Birendra had acceptability among the masses and political parties as well; and his willingness to lead Nepal to democracy was well known. It is true that had he still been alive, the credibility of the throne would not have been lost so early and without the emergence of any better substitute. Before 2001, Nepal was a nation in political transition. Now, it is a land ruled by leaders, who have no other plans except to walk with their erroneous ideas.

It’s alarming to see that Nepal really has no economic roadmap in place. Industries are either being shut down or they are stagnating. Janakpur, a remarkable city in the Terai region, has no other industry apart from a state commanded cigarette factory. As a result, the city is far worse today than it was twenty years ago.

This problem is contagious. The condition of Nepal’s other big cities is not very different. Nepali leaders visiting New Delhi have no will to execute the Memorandums of Understanding signed with the Indian Government or the Indian private sector in the areas of thermal power, telecommunications, tourism etc.

Until the political class reacts to economic impulses, things in Nepal will be hard to change. Nepal deserves a better deal than shrinking under the false promises of undeserving politicians. Democracy is indeed desirable but only if Nepal has chances of getting a real one, not something clownish in its place.
Atul Kumar Thakur
September 29, 2012, Saturday
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer, dated on September 20, 2012/ http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/52487-nepal-needs-genuine-democracy.html )

Dream of Asian Resurgence!

Mani Shankar Aiyar represents the core values of Congress party, with his articulate and balanced approach in diplomacy and politics; he has influenced the views on crucial issues across the world. As a Foreign Service official, parliamentarian, Minister and an avid intellectual, he immensely contributed to India’s foreign policy and grassroot democracy. Recently we had talk at his residence amidst his hectic schedule, though even in short meeting, he spoke substantially on our potential foreign policy in neighbouring countries which is the need of hour under the new changes. Excerpts of our talk are…

Q: - As a statesmen and senior parliamentarian, how you see the changing dynamics in Indian foreign policy? Isn’t it economic consideration alone that outgrowing the strategic compulsions?

A: - While it’s true that foreign policy is being driven less by ideological and more by pragmatic consideration than was the case earlier, I don’t believe economic consideration alone are determining the course of foreign policy. The relationships with the U.S.A, which has become the predominant parameter of foreign policy, is ofcourse closer than ever before and does contain strong component of economic, strategic and security consideration, but is not being allowed compromise our sovereignty or independent position on several matters of international interest.

Within our reason, there is determined effort to improve relations with Pakistan. Should a breakthrough be achieved, this will dramatically alter the regional and international context within which our foreign policy operates. Equally, a strong and political relationship with China is a necessary precursor for the Asian Resurgence to be witnessed in during this century.

Q: - Despite our growing recognition as an economic and strategic power at global arena, our ties with neighbours seems timid or even dwindling…how Indian authorities should approach on it?

A: - All foreign policy starts at a country’s doorsteps, not until there is peace and tranquility in a country’s immediate neighbourhood can that country hope to exercise any real influence in the world at large. Our most tangled relationship has ofcourse been with Pakistan and hence the priority that needs to be extended to removing this albatross from our neck.

Q: - Strategically, China has remained a big factor for us, and now it’s also leading an economic warfare with us in Nepal and Pakistan, where it has expansionist motives…recently China has invested billions of dollars in Gilgit/Baltistan region and also in the adjoining terrain of Tibetan border in Nepal…should India take an indifferent stand or enter in the fray with better competency?

A: - We can either turn Nepal into a South Asian Belgium or convert it into the battlefield between Indian and China, as happened in Europe between Germany and France or we can make Nepal a bridge of friendship between India and China in friendly co-operative relationships. The wiser thing would be the later, but ofcourse it would be the more difficult to be do. In a recent visit to Nepal, I took the measure of the extent of distrust there is for us matched by the extent to which China is looked upon benevolently. I am afraid, this gap in perception will be only widen if India attempts to impose itself on Nepal to force them entwining Indian mandate.

If, other hand, India were to regard China as a partner rather than a rival in Nepal, then we might be able to bring the Nepali’s perception of India on par with their indulgent view of China. What India must never forget in the natural and economic advantages, as well as civilisational, cultural and linguistic links which China will be never able to match. Therefore, instead competing for influence, rather we should try to work in the interest of Nepal and her people.
I am strongly view that foreign policy should be deployed to promote reconciliation, not aggravation. A hostile relationship with Pakistan will render the Chinese presence in these mountain areas a threat to our security, but a warm relationship with Pakistan will render the Chinese presence irrelevant.

Q: - What should be the India’s next course of action in Bangladesh, Nepal, Srilanka, Maldives and Bhutan?
A: - At the same time, there is much scope for getting our relations with Bangladesh on even kill. The same is the case with Nepal. As for Srilanka, much depends upon on internal settlement of the issue of Srilankan Tamils. Srilanka is perhaps our only neighbour with whom we appeared to have reached a satisfactory settlement. On Maldives and Bhutan, my view whatever will be the hurdles, ensuring peace, co-operation and good neighborliness in South Asia should be the highest objectives of Indian foreign policy.

Q: - You always supported for the balanced ties in our neighborhood; as a rising power too, it should be our aim to strengthen the co-operation in South Asia and dream for Asian Resurgence. Hoping best in the South Asian region with your remarkable views…

A: - The numerous challenges we are facing today either strategically or in foreign policy will be eased with a balanced ties with our neighbours. So, it should be our foremost aim to give more focus on the South Asian region…positive changes will be visible soon once India will secure its desired objectives in neighbouring region.
Atul Kumar Thakur
July 26, 2011, Tuesday, New Delhi
Email:- summertickets@gmail.com