How Can a Pregnant Woman Get Pregnant Again?

An Indonesian woman gave birth to a 19-lb. 2-oz. baby behemoth on Sept. 24, but that was only the second weirdest pregnancy tale of the month. The strangest belongs to Julia Grovenburg, a 31-year-old Arkansas woman who has a double pregnancy. No, not twins — Grovenburg became pregnant twice, two weeks apart. Isn't that supposed to be impossible?

Almost. There have been only 10 recorded cases of the phenomenon, dubbed superfetation. In Grovenburg's case, she became pregnant first with a girl (whom she has decided to name Jillian) and then two weeks later with a boy (Hudson). The babies have separate due dates — Jillian on Dec. 24, Hudson on Jan. 10.(See pictures of pregnant-belly art.)

Dr. Robert Atlas, chairman of the obstetrics and gynecology department at Baltimore's Mercy Hospital, says he has never encountered a case of superfetation during practice. He says such pregnancies occur when a woman continues ovulating after becoming pregnant and when that second, fertilized egg is able to implant itself in the lining of the womb — two things that wouldn't happen in a normal pregnancy. Typically, hormonal changes prevent further ovulation and thicken the lining of the uterus to preclude a second embryo from attaching. Why didn't that happen with Grovenburg? No one's really sure.(See how to prevent illness at any age.)

Despite the rarity of Grovenburg's case, Atlas tells TIME the phenomenon shouldn't be cause for concern. Grovenburg's babies should behave much as twins do; in all likelihood, the second baby will be born slightly premature when Julia first goes into labor. Since the difference between the babies is only two weeks, the second baby will be nearly at full term anyway. Indeed, the last known case of superfetation had a happy ending. In 2007, a British woman gave birth to a boy and girl who were conceived three weeks apart, with no undue complications.

Dont know if any other case surfaced since then. 

Deficit Dilemma: Can Washington Tackle Its Sacred Cows?

Washington doesn't agree on much these days, with one glaring exception: that the U.S. is facing a long-term fiscal crisis. The federal government's debt is now $13.8 trillion and is projected to hit $20 trillion by the end of the coming decade — when it will reach the highest level as a share of the economy that the U.S. has seen in 50 years. In September the International Monetary Fund warned that the U.S. is moving dangerously close to a point at which spooked markets will send interest rates on new borrowing to devastatingly high levels. As it is, the government is on course to spend $1 trillion per year by 2020 on interest alone — about a quarter of all federal spending. "We are accumulating debt burdens that will rival a third-world nation within 10 years," says David Walker, former chairman of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. "Once you end up losing the confidence of the markets, things happen very suddenly and very dramatically. We've seen that in Greece, we've seen it in Ireland, and we must not see it happen in the United States."

On Dec. 1, the two chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which was created by President Obama to find ways to get out of this hole, released the conclusions of its work. Both left and right had plenty of complaints about the mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts proposed by former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson, and it's not clear whether Congress will pay the plan any mind. But Bowles warned that inaction was not an option: "The deficit and debt is like a cancer," he said on Nov. 30. "And it's going to destroy our country from within."(See how Americans are spending now.)

The list of reasons for our looming economic disaster is long: a tax-cutting and spending spree when economic times were good; the financial crisis, with its blow to tax revenues and massive spending in response; two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are also plenty of ways we can get out of hock. Unfortunately, earmarks and the "waste, fraud and abuse" some politicians rail about barely make up the crust on the bread. The Bowles-Simpson plan has spotlighted some of our government's long-standing sacred cows — ones that may finally need a turn on the butcher's block. Here are three of the most expensive.

I. A Leaner Military Machine?

Even our generals agree that we need to balance our budget. "The most significant threat to our national security is our debt," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen said in August. But Mullen wasn't calling for defense cuts to reduce the deficit. He was warning that the deficit could mean that cuts were coming whether the brass wanted them or not. That kind of thinking has kept the Pentagon virtually off-limits for more than a decade. Republicans believe that defense is government's core function and rarely challenge the military's spending wish lists. Democrats, for their part, have long run scared from charges that they are antimilitary, particularly since 9/11. "After 2001, nobody wanted to challenge the military on anything, and [Congress] didn't make the hard choices," says Lawrence Korb of the liberal Center for American Progress.

Holbrooke in Afghanistan: A Far Cry from Bosnia

By TONY KARON Wednesday, Dec. 15, 2010

U.S. soldiers from First Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, patrol in West Now Ruzi village, in Panjwai district, Afghanistan

Alexander Zemlianichenko / AP

• Comment
• Print
• Email
• Reprints

• Facebook
• Twitter

• MORE

• 0digg

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke will be remembered more for his epic achievement in brokering an end to the war in Bosnia, than for the frustration of his final mission in the conflict theater designated "Afghanistan-Pakistan" in Washington. As the Administration completes its scheduled review of Afghanistan strategy this week, officials are struggling to put an optimistic face on a grim reality: nine years after invading Afghanistan — and despite the best efforts of Holbrooke and countless American diplomats, aid officials and soldiers — the U.S. is spinning its wheels in a country that styles itself as "the graveyard of empires." The Taliban insurgency is growing; the Karzai government is so riddled with corruption that it alienates the civilian population in the war zone; and Pakistan simply refuses to close down the sanctuaries on its soil from which the Afghan insurgency is waged.

None of this was any personal failing on Ambassador Holbrooke's part. The hard-charging diplomatic style that allowed him to bully Balkan warlords into an imperfect and yet indispensable Dayton peace accord was of little use in the Afghanistan-Pakistan conundrum. The difference, fundamentally, is a question of American power in the Balkans in 1995, compared with American power in the Hindu Kush in 2010. In 1995, the bombs were already falling as Holbrooke held Slobodan Milosevic's feet to the fire, warning him that he was on a path to obliteration, while at the same time offering him an off-ramp he eventually accepted for fear of the getting on the wrong side of the lone superpower finally flexing its muscles in the Balkans. But when it came to sweating Pakistan into doing more to close down the Afghan Taliban or badgering President Hamid Karzai to crack down on corruption in his government, Holbrooke made little headway. Whether he bellowed at them or spoke softly and sympathetically, Karzai and the Pakistanis made their decisions based on their own interests, which are not always the same as America's. And both parties know that the U.S. has precious little alternative but to work with them. Washington has played the military card in the Afghan theater, and it has failed to prevail. The upbeat assessments of General David Petraeus notwithstanding, neither Karzai nor the Pakistanis believe the U.S. can win the war in Afghanistan. Nor is it in a position to take action against them or replace them with more pliable alternatives.(See the top 10 world news stories of 2010.)

Sure, Holbrooke's abrasive style antagonized Karzai and ruffled feathers in Islamabad. The Washington Post's David Ignatius writes that President Obama had planned to remove Holbrooke as envoy, but was persuaded by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to leave him in place. But the problems the U.S. is facing in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not those of personality or personnel, and the differences between Washington and its putative allies in the Af-Pak theater are not about politesse and diplomatic ritual. Karzai and the Pakistanis make cold balance-of-power calculations based on their own interests, which are not always the same as Washington's no matter how many American envoys try to persuade them otherwise. They don't believe America will win the longest war in its history, and that guides their own power plays and reluctance to implement U.S. strategy.(See TIME's appreciation piece on Holbrooke.)

Holbrooke, the quintessential realist, had in fact become one of the Administration officials most willing to publicly discuss the limits of what could be achieved by force in Afghanistan. While he vigorously opposed any precipitous retreat or capitulation, by last summer he had begun publicly advocating for some form of political settlement with the Taliban, based on U.S. "red lines," like forbidding sanctuary to al-Qaeda.

"Let me be clear on one thing, everybody understands that this war will not end in a clear-cut military victory. It's not going to end on the deck of a battleship like World War II, or Dayton, Ohio, like the Bosnian war," Holbrooke told reporters last July. "It's going to have some different ending from that, some form of political settlements are necessary; you can't have a settlement with al-Qaeda, you can't talk to them, you can't negotiate with them, it's out of the question. But it is possible to talk to Taliban leaders."(See photos of U.S. troops in the Taliban heartland.)

The Administration has, of course, been haltingly moving in that direction, with plenty of caveats and while remaining committed to a military escalation aimed at pummeling the Taliban to accept a negotiated outcome more favorable to U.S. goals. A negotiated solution with the Taliban is hardly a controversial proposition in Kabul or Islamabad, and recent opinion polls found that three-quarters of Afghanistan's citizenry seek the same — and 55% want foreign troops to leave the country as soon as possible. Still, even getting to a glass-half-full outcome of the sort Holbrooke orchestrated at Dayton may yet take years, and is far from certain. Getting there would have been helped by Holbrooke's legendary diplomatic acumen — although it may be that more of the cajoling of the unconvinced for which he was so famous will have to be done not in Kabul or Islamabad, but in Washington.(Comment on this story.)

Obama Finds a New Model for Presidential Success

By MARK HALPERIN Monday, Dec. 13, 2010

President Barack Obama holds a meeting with the President's Export Council on Dec. 9, 2010

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

• Comment
• Print
• Email
• Reprints

• Facebook
• Twitter

• MORE

• 1digg

Now he's the one who needs hope and change.

Barack Obama's unsettled presidency is presently tied to four interconnected projects: 1) bringing back the economy, 2) raising the standard of living of the nonwealthy, 3) fulfilling his remaining campaign promises, and 4) getting re-elected. The final three all depend primarily on the first, and making the economy grow is, to some degree, out of the President's control. Obama's political enemies think he is on track to achieve none of the four and are anticipating an overthrow in 2012.

But by closing 2010 with the kind of bipartisan compromise that was supposed to be the hallmark of his Administration, Obama showed that he is capable of change, and that there is hope he can achieve his goals.(See the top 10 political gaffes of 2010.)

To avoid seeing the economy stall again, the President needs to demonstrate to Washington and the nation that he will have a method of centrist governance when Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in January. This month's tax-deal success, bipartisan heartburn notwithstanding, can serve as a template. Here's a simple rule to guide the President: if a proposal is denounced by both Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin, it will probably find support in the center of the electorate.

The conditions that brought the White House and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell to the negotiating table — the guns-to-their-heads imperative of expiring tax rates for every American on New Year's Day — won't exist on other issues in 2011. But the basic terms that got them to an agreement can be applied to a whole host of concerns. And both sides of the table now have exercised their cooperative muscles — and perhaps have built some trust and respect. The political nihilists on the right and the left cannot fathom or tolerate such deals. The notion of swallowing something that their opponents want is tautologically antithetical to their mind-set. But when John Boehner takes the Speaker's gavel, the tax deal is going to seem less like a one-off and more like a model.

Obama made the first big step toward real compromise by incorporating two elements that were distasteful to him, in the form of continued lower income-tax rates for the wealthiest and generous rates for the estate tax. When necessary, he can follow the same pattern of accepting the unwelcome with the essential to get deals on energy, immigration, education and, most important, deficit reduction.(See the top 10 campaign ads of 2010.)

As shrewd conservative commentators have pointed out, Obama got the kind of stimulus package he believes the country needs to keep up the momentum for growth, incorporating a lot of new spending and targeted tax breaks that Republicans can live with, even if they don't love them. In every area on which the President has an unfilled campaign promise, if both sides are willing to produce votes in Congress for grand bargains that contain elements they dislike, the country is going to see a lot of progress, including on the twin (and sometimes contradictory) goals of economic stimulus and deficit reduction.

Obama offered two memorable press-conference performances last week. In the first, he conveyed cranky annoyance with liberals for standing in the way of swift passage of the tax deal. In the second, after a private White House powwow with Bill Clinton, he abruptly abandoned the former President at the briefing room's podium, leaving the confident, compelling Clinton to play virtual President in support of the package. Not Obama's most distinguished moments, to be sure. But such tactical blips won't impede his strategy overall — for now.(Comment on this story.)

Over time, this new Obama — the one who, out of necessity, is going to make deals with Republicans to fix the economy and get things done, rather than keep his wagon hitched to the liberal wing of his party — has a chance to have not only a liberated and happy holiday season, but also a 2011 filled with the fruits of a successful midcourse correction that has not yet been a part of his presidential repertoire. That's change the President can believe in.

One Nation, Halperin's politics column for TIME.com, appears every Monday.

Google Nexus S: Top Android Smart Phone Now

By HARRY MCCRACKEN Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2010

Google's Nexus S smart phone runs the Android operating system

Samsung Electronics / AFP / Getty Images

• Comment
• Print
• Email
• Reprints

• Facebook
• Twitter

• MORE

• 1digg

"Pure Google." That's the tagline Google is using to promote the Nexus S, the newest smart phone to run its Android operating system. Which brings up an obvious question: If this phone is pure Google, just what do other Android phones offer — adulterated Google?

Yep, pretty much, they do. Android's openness — it's a piece of free software that any company can use and modify without Google's permission or active involvement — is one of its defining characteristics. But phonemakers and wireless carriers frequently exercise that freedom in strange ways. They ship phones with stale versions of Android long after newer, better ones are available. They tamper with the operating system's interface and clutter it up with preinstalled apps of questionable value. With its Fascinate, Verizon Wireless even dumped Google as Android's search engine and swapped in Microsoft's Bing — a move as perverse as a McDonald's franchise deciding to sell Whoppers.(Get the latest tech news at Techland.com.)

The Nexus S, on the other hand, packs Android as Google intended it to be experienced, with a full suite of Google apps and services and no third-party detritus. It's also the first phone to run Android 2.3 Gingerbread, the operating system's latest version. The phone isn't without its quirks, and it doesn't threaten the bragging rights of Apple's iPhone 4 as the slickest, simplest, best-integrated smart phone available today. But it's the best all-around Android handset I've tried to date.

Back in January, Google took full responsibility for a Nexus S predecessor called the Nexus One — it even marketed it directly to consumers. Four and a half months later, however, the company concluded that it didn't want to be in the phone-selling business after all. (It turned out that people like to see handsets in person before they buy them and want a variety of service options rather than the Nexus One's single T-Mobile plan.) The Nexus S's distribution strategy is more conventional: it'll be sold at Best Buy, where it will sit alongside scads of competitors (including the iPhone) and go for $199 with a two-year T-Mobile contract or $529 with no commitment. Unlike most phones, the S is unlocked — a boon to world travelers, who can pop out the T-Mobile SIM card and replace it with a local SIM rather than paying wallet-busting international roaming fees.

The aspect of the Nexus S that's least purely Google's is the hardware. Manufactured by Samsung, it's a spruced-up variant of a pleasing design seen in Galaxy S phones such as Verizon's Fascinate and AT&T's Captivate, as well as the Windows Phone 7–based Focus. The 4-in. screen size is just right: it's noticeably roomier than the 3.5-in. iPhone 4 and 3.7-in. Droid Incredible displays, without the pocket-straining XXL feel of a phone like the 4.3-in. Droid X.

Rather than the more typical LCD, the screen uses AMOLED technology, which makes for vivid colors and deep blacks; unlike some AMOLED displays, it doesn't wash out in sunlight. It has a unique, ever so subtle curve that adds to the pleasantly swoopy industrial design, feels comfy when you press the handset to your cheek and reduces the chances of the screen shattering into a million pieces if the phone tumbles from your hand and smacks the pavement face-first.

As with an increasing percentage of new Android phones, the Nexus S boasts two cameras: a five-megapixel one on the back, plus a lower-resolution model on the front for video calls. But the back-facing one is just adequate — even when I had plenty of light, my snapshots were grainier than those from the best phone cameras, and it shoots only standard-definition video, not HD. Worse, the front-facing camera seems to be a useless appendage at the moment. Google doesn't provide video-calling software, and it doesn't yet work with the third-party apps I tried. It'll be a cool feature if and when Google or somebody else comes up with a video-chat service to rival the iPhone 4's FaceTime.(See the top 10 gadgets of 2010.)

Another Nexus S feature, its support for a technology known as near-field communications (NFC), ventures even further into bleeding-edge territory. It lets the phone communicate wirelessly with other NFC-equipped objects that are no more than 4 in. away — a higher-tech twist on the old infrared technology that let PalmPilot owners squirt contact info back and forth. The Nexus S's NFC can't do much in the real world just yet, unless you happen to live in Portland, Ore., where a Google pilot program is giving local businesses NFC-powered window decals. (If you hold a Nexus S up to the sticker, it'll instantly display information about the establishment in question.) But chances are high that NFC will be all around us eventually, and the Nexus S will be ready.

How about that pure Google software? It helps. Android in its natural state is sleeker and less glitchy than it usually is once other companies have gotten their hands on it.

The more Google-centric your online life is, the higher the chances you'll love the Nexus S. Setting up the phone doesn't involve much more than entering your Google account name and password; Android then automatically configures services such as Gmail and Google Calendar. (If you're moving from another Android handset, it even copies your apps and wallpaper over.) Google makes plenty of its apps and services available for the iPhone too, but the Android versions often come out first and include more stuff. The Nexus S includes the latest versions of all of them, including Google Maps with turn-by-turn spoken driving directions.

The third-party apps in the Android Market continue to lag behind those in Apple's iPhone App Store in both quantity and quality. Still, the situation for Android users is far less bleak than it was a few months ago. These days, I'm startled when a major provider of mobile software tells me that it has no plans to support the operating system, and the best new apps are more likely to rival their iPhone counterparts. Even the megahit game Angry Birds has made its way over.

The fact that the Nexus S comes with Android 2.3 Gingerbread is a plus — just ask anybody whose brand-new phone uses an outdated version of the operating system, thereby preventing it from running high-profile programs like Flash Player. (Google will also likely push future upgrades out to the phone more promptly than wireless carriers get them to other handsets.) Gingerbread has been optimized for speed — the S is among the zippiest-feeling handsets I've used — and has a cleaner, classier look than its predecessors. It's got an improved interface for selecting, cutting and pasting text; the on-screen keyboard is easier to use; and it provides the Nexus with its ability to serve as a mobile hot spot that can zap wireless Internet access to up to six other devices, such as laptops, tablets and e-readers.(Comment on this story.)

Overall, though, Gingerbread is a minor upgrade that doesn't do enough to make Android feel less clunky and kludgy. For instance, there are multiple places where the new-and-improved text tools aren't available. Accomplishing tasks tends to take more taps than in Apple's iOS, and user interfaces vary needlessly from app to app. Inexplicably, the operating system retains two e-mail programs: one for Gmail, one for everything else, and each lacks at least one essential feature available in the other. At last week's All Things Digital: Dive into Mobile conference in San Francisco, Android honcho Andy Rubin hinted that a more coherent upgrade is in the works — but he didn't say when it would arrive.

For now, Apple does purity much better than Google does. Even so, I like the concept of pure Google phones, and I hope that the Nexus S isn't the last of its kind. By taking charge of the Android experience, Google has the power — and the responsibility — to iron out the operating system's remaining kinks without messing up all the things it already gets right

War of Words Escalates in India's Telecom Scandal

Ratan Tata has long stood apart from other titans of Indian business. He doesn't mingle with cricketers or starlets, and he doesn't live in a 27-floor, $2 billion home like Mukesh Ambani, India's richest man. Tata has also for the most part remained aloof from the rough and tumble of Indian politics. But that changed in spectacular fashion last week when Tata engaged in an indignant public spat with a member of Parliament, trading allegations about whose company may or may not have unduly benefited during the 2008 allocation of the mobile-phone spectrum.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, a member of India's upper house of Parliament and a former business rival, accused Tata in a Dec. 7 open letter of getting special treatment in the allocation of GSM spectrum, and then selling equity in Tata Teleservices to the Japanese company NTT Docomo for billions of dollars. Tata replied with a public missive of his own: "Your letter is based on untruths and distortion of facts, and I feel compelled to place the real facts as bluntly as I can before you," he wrote on Dec. 8. "I can hold my head high and say that neither the Tata Group nor I have at any time been involved in any of these misdeeds."(See a photographic history of the cell phone.)

Their war of words is just the latest turn in a widening telecom scandal. In a voluminous report issued on Nov. 10, India's top auditor detailed irregularities in the government allocation of the 2G spectrum to private companies, calling it "arbitrary, unfair and inequitable." The Department of Telecommunications, the report said, ignored its own guidelines and the advice of the Prime Minister's office and underpriced the spectrum, "flouting every canon of financial propriety, rules and procedures." The result was a loss of nearly $40 billion in potential government revenues. India's Telecom Minister, Andimuthu Raja, resigned under pressure on Nov. 14 but denies any wrongdoing.

The auditor general's report focuses on the alleged failings of the Telecom Ministry, but the $40 billion question — who might have benefited from the lower prices or jumped the queue to grab a piece of India's booming mobile-phone market — is left unanswered. The report estimates the loss based on the underpricing of new spectrum and the allotment of extra spectrum to existing carriers. Tata Teleservices is one of the carriers, but there is nothing in the report suggesting that Raja gave Tata any special treatment. "Raja didn't do anything specific for them," notes Vibodh Parthasarathi, a professor at the Center for Culture, Media and Governance at Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi.(See the top 10 world stories of 2010.)

Still, fueling the speculation is Tata's appearance in a series of taped phone conversations recently leaked to two Indian magazines, Open and Outlook. In the tapes, Tata talks to his p.r. representative and lobbyist, Niira Radia, who also represents Mukesh Ambani, about her efforts to help Raja outmaneuver a rival politician to win a second term as Telecom Minister. "Does he know that the other guy is gunning for him?" Tata asks. Radia replies, "Yeah. He is fully aware. So I promised him I'll help him. I'm helping him, Ratan, wherever I can."

In another conversation, Radia discusses with an unidentified person the question of who gained the most from the 2G allocation. She agrees that "the younger brother," a reference to Mukesh Ambani's brother and rival, Anil Ambani, is the biggest beneficiary of Raja's tenure as minister. Asked why she is helping Anil when Mukesh is her client, she says, "This is a very complex issue ... My clients, the Tatas, have also been big beneficiaries."

Since the tapes were released, Tata has been on a public relations blitz, condemning the violation of his privacy and seeking to block further publication of his phone conversations, while insisting that nothing illegal or improper has been done on his behalf. Tata told the Indian Express that he had no interest in who became Telecom Minister in 2009 and said that the implication that Radia was trying to influence the appointment was all "innuendos."(See "The World's Cheapest Car Debuts in India.")

Some observers have urged the government to revoke any licenses found to be tainted, but that is unlikely to happen, and would only further disrupt an industry already in flux. The Indian stock market has lost about 8% of its value since the 2G report's Nov. 10 release. A more likely outcome, telecom experts say, is that the 2G allocations will remain in place, while the government may work out a formula for recouping some of its hypothetical losses. Revenue from the privatization of national resources has allowed India to try to narrow its fiscal deficit and bankroll social-welfare schemes.

The focus on lost government revenue — depending on how it's calculated, the figure may be as low as $12 billion — might be getting in the way of improving telecom policy. Revenue levels are not a good measure of spectrum policy, says Partha Mukhopadhyay, a senior fellow at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi. A better policy would, for example, unbundle spectrum in cities and villages to encourage carriers to reach underserved rural areas. Increasing the price paid for spectrum (which is, in any case, passed on to consumers) without improving policy "would be a failure," Mukhopadhyay says. "The fear is, we will not take the lessons from this particular deal and improve the way spectrum is allocated."

Paradoxically, irregularities in the telecom market might not affect telecom consumers. Rohan Samarajiva, an expert on telecom policy in South Asia, has studied the mobile-phone market in Bangladesh. There, too, investigations revealed hundreds of cases of spectrum sold and resold in "non-transparent" transactions. Nevertheless, Bangladesh has nearly 100% phone coverage and some of the lowest prices in the world. "How the [phone market] entry was created has not harmed it," Samarajiva says. "The effects are not really in that industry."(See pictures of Bangladesh.)

The impact of any irregularities in spectrum allocation — if such irregularities are ultimately proved — may, in fact, be felt in other institutions. Corruption has become the No. 1 concern in public conversation in India, according to a recent poll by the BBC, and opposition demands for a probe have disrupted the functioning of the legislature in the world's biggest democracy. The press, too, has come under fire, with several prominent journalists featuring in the Radia tapes as power brokers and go-betweens. Meanwhile, India's Central Bureau of Investigation has just completed a raid of Raja's home in New Delhi, and says that it expects to complete its investigation of him by early next year. Raja has denied any wrongdoing. Repairing the damage to India's reputation may take much longer.