| Soldier's eye-view Intimate portrait of US platoon in 'most dangerous place on earth' bbc.co.uk |
Iran Guards base blast kills 18 An explosion in an ammunitions store at a base belonging to the Iran's Revolutionary Guards kills 18 people and injured 14. bbc.co.uk |
MasterChef gets an Indian makeover Cookery programme based on the British original goes head to head with India's hugely popular reality showsThe ingredients are: a Bollywood star, months of auditions around India, thousands of candidates, one of the biggest potential audiences in the world, satellite TV, and lots and lots of cash. Welcome to MasterChef India.The country's latest reality TV show, and its first devoted to cooking, launched this weekend at prime time last night, going head to head with the hugely popular reality show heavyweights.Presented by Akshay Kumar, an actor better known for his martial arts skills, the format borrows heavily from the British original. The winner will get his or her own cookery show, their own cookbook and £130,000.The top chefs who join Kumar as judges wear shiny suits rather than the western chef's uniform of toque hats and aprons.At one point, they dip their fingers into a contestant's spinach and banana dish, compliment the "innovative combination" before dismissing it with "It's a no". Kumar glares balefully at contestants before telling them that their rumali roti, a famously thin type of flat bread, have "thick edges" and they will never succeed unless they throw them in the air.The publicity campaign has promised a semi-hysterical matron screaming complaints at the "treatment" she and her "spreads" have received on the show and a sobbing sari-clad teenage girl throwing herself into Kumar's arms. Ajay Chopra, an Indian chef recently returned from London, said there was a difference between "being nasty like Gordon [Ramsay] and giving them a glare that says 'we are not here to play games'". "I am very strict in my kitchen and I am on the show, too," Chopra said.Ajit Andhare, the chief executive of Colosceum, the programme's production company, told Mint newspaper: "Adapting the international format to reflect Indian tastes was a big challenge."One problem was that Indians view food "as meals, and not as single dishes", he said. Cooking has become a significant new trend among the wealthy Indian classes who previously relied on domestic staff. Top chefs earn big salaries and cookery books sell in huge numbers.More than 2,400 potential contestants were interviewed in six cities before being cut down to 40, who were then sent to a boot camp where their first task was to chop onions.Sanjeev Kapoor, one of India's best-known chefs, said he was unsure the reality format would work immediately. "At the moment they are relying on the star power to get the show going," said Kapoor, who was approached to participate in the programme.One problem may be the judges' attitude. Audiences in India have often sided with the underdog in reality shows, from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, which inspired the Oscar-winning film Slumdog Millionaire, to more recent variants which have seen minor Bollywood stars living in villages competing at domestic chores."My mum watched [MasterChef] and asked me why they are being so rude to contestants. 'Don't they know how hard it is to cook?' she asked me. That's an issue," Kapoor said.Chopra said that "60 to 70%" of Indians did not know the difference between "a cook and a chef" and it was time they learned."This is not about family cooking. It's hard work. A chef is someone who makes something out of nothing, day in day out," he said.MasterChefIndiaTelevisionFood TVJason Burkeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Reformed Suede to receive Q award Reformed indie band Suede are to receive the inspiration prize honour at the Q Awards next week. bbc.co.uk |
Persian Gulf? Arabian Gulf? One big gulf in understanding | Brian Whitaker Has the US switched from calling the Persian Gulf 'Arabian' just to annoy Iran? It would seem that wayOn one side of the water there's Iran, and on the other side a collection of Arab states: Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.The ancient geographers Strabo and Ptolemy called this stretch of water the Persian Gulf – a name that has persisted into modern times.Starting in the 1960s, though – and linked to the rise of nationalism – states on the Arab side began calling it the "Arabian Gulf" (al-Khaleej al-Arabi in Arabic).This presents a dilemma for journalists writing about the region. To avoid taking sides in the dispute, my personal preference is to simply call it "the Gulf", on the assumption that readers will know from the context that I'm not talking about the Gulf of Mexico.Before anyone asks, I might point out that I take a similar view of the water separating England and France which is officially known on one side as the English Channel and on the other as La Manche. Insisting on the "English" bit seems unnecessarily provocative to me, and for the sake of keeping our entente with France cordiale, I think it's better just to talk about "the Channel".But sitting on the fence doesn't impress the Iranians when it comes to the Persian/Arabian Gulf. They are so touchy about it that in 2006 copies of the Economist were banned from Iran when the magazine dropped the "Persian" epithet from "Gulf". There were also diplomatic protests when the Louvre in Paris omitted "Persian" from mentions of the Gulf in its guides.At an official level, the UN and various other international bodies recognise "Persian Gulf" as the established and recommended name – presumably based on historical usage. That is also the official position of the US. Or rather, it was until last week.On 20 October, at a press briefing on arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Andrew Shapiro, an assistant secretary at the state department, referred to "the Arabian Gulf and broader Middle East".On its own, this might be brushed off as a slip of the tongue, though Shapiro does seem to have been referring to a prepared statement. And since the phrase "broader Middle East" clearly includes the contentious stretch of water, why was it necessary to mention the Gulf (Persian or otherwise) at all?Almost immediately, Shapiro's use of "Arabian Gulf" stirred the National Iranian American Council into action, and in protest they organised a letter-writing campaign to the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. Their policy director, Jamal Abdi, also wrote an article about it for the Huffington Post, which appeared on Monday.It's difficult to imagine, therefore, that when Kurt Campbell – another assistant secretary at the state department – stepped into another press briefing on Tuesday he was totally unaware of the "Arabian Gulf" rumpus. But he then used the phrase himself, referring to "piracy issues in the Arabian Gulf".This is too much of a coincidence to be accidental; it suggests a change of policy. "Persian Gulf" has been the official American term since 1917 and in the absence of any explanation from the state department we can only speculate about why it has suddenly become Arabian. There's no logical reason for it, except as a rather petty gesture calculated to annoy Iran.IranUS foreign policyMiddle EastBrian Whitakerguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |