Kashmir and the Indian state

Published: June 19, 2012
Email
The writer is a syndicated columnist and a former member of India’s Rajya Sabha

The writer is a syndicated columnist and a former member of India’s Rajya Sabha

It is strange that those who claim to be radicals on the Kashmir issue are found wanting when given the opportunity to propose a solution for the problems of that state. The government-appointed interlocutors, Dilip Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar and MM Ansari, are said to be progressive people. However, their suggestions have turned out to be pro-status quo. In comparison, the ruling National Conference, with all its dependence on New Delhi, has been pursuing a more progressive path and has demanded the restoration of the pre-1952 status for Kashmir, when the centre exercised authority over only three subjects i.e., foreign affairs, defence and communications.

Indeed, when the princely states merged with India after the lapse of Britain’s authority, the state of Jammu and Kashmir stood apart from the other states. It agreed to join the Union of India on the condition that the state would have a special status in the country. Accordingly, Article 370 of the Indian constitution gave shape to that understanding and carved out Jammu and Kashmir into a state, which would have its own constitution, flag and several other similar privileges. Shiekh Abdullah, the popular Kashmir leader who negotiated the settlement, made it clear that his state had given New Delhi power over foreign affairs, defence and communications only.

Things took a turn for the worse when the central government began to encroach upon subjects other than the above-mentioned ones. Abdullah pointed out that it was a violation of the agreement and paid the price for his defiance. He was dismissed and detained for nearly 12 years. Though the government of India and the New Delhi-appointed successors of Sheikh Abdullah extended many other laws to Jammu and Kashmir, all these were illegal and unconstitutional. The interlocutors are wrong to suggest that a constitutional body should go over the laws extended to the state of Kashmir after the 1952 agreement to see which of them can stay. This is an unnecessary exercise because what the centre did subsequent to the 1952 agreement was unconstitutional. The interlocutors should have told New Delhi to withdraw all those laws that went beyond the above-mentioned three subjects.

It is clear that Kashmir had joined the Union on certain conditions and those conditions cannot be changed unilaterally. Since New Delhi violated them and extended certain central laws without the sanction of Jammu and Kashmir, those laws should be cancelled. The interlocutors, I am afraid, have favoured New Delhi by not pointing out how it violated the 1952 agreement and how it has been gradually edging out the state government from the territory which belongs to it.

As for the report prepared by the interlocutors, it has not shaken either New Delhi or the political parties’ belief that the status quo, with a few changes, can resolve the problem. Therefore, the report has not ruffled any feathers as it should have, but then government-appointed bodies do not dare to go beyond a certain point because that is not what is expected of them.

The interlocutors have not used terms like ‘autonomy’ or  ‘self-determination’ in their report. They should have expressed their opinion on these issues. In fact, they should have expressed their opinion even on the demand for azadi because this is one slogan, which the Kashmiris always raise in some form or the other. I do not support this demand because it is neither practical nor feasible. Yet, the interlocutors have missed the main point by not discussing it.

The Hurriyat leaders, who refused to meet the interlocutors, have called the report  “a farce.” Maybe, it is, but their sense of self-righteousness is not taking the state anywhere either. They seem oblivious to the ground realities. The Indian opinion, by and large, is against their approach. They have to win it over, not by sitting in the cool valley, but by covering the dusty roads of the country. If and when the changes in the constitution are made to accommodate the sentiments of the Kashmiris, they would have to be instituted by the Indian parliament, which does not even entertain the idea of autonomy, much less azadi.

Former India prime minister PV Narasimha Rao had once said that once the solution to the Kashmir problem came within the boundaries of India, then the sky will be the limit for the people of Kashmir. But back then, the Hurriyat was obsessed with its own ideas and did not accept the olive branch that was offered by Rao or later by Atal Behari Vajpayee.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 20th, 2012.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (47)

  • BlackJack
    Jun 19, 2012 - 11:35PM

    I will make only 2 points:
    1. The chances of J&K surviving with India only assuming responsibility of defense, foreign affairs and communications are as robust as the current Afghanistan dispensation surviving with these forms of assistance from their benefactors. Without a consistent infusion of funds, J&K will face default in days – the govt there survives on taxes paid from UP to Manipur to Tamil Nadu. And if you are willing to take Indian money, and handover responsibility for defense and foreign affairs as well, you are in effect subject to the laws of the land – the NC can posture all it wants, but it needs to face the facts.
    2. Ladakh and Jammu are unnecessarily subject to these discriminatory laws when they would happily integrate themselves with the rest of India. We need to take some courageous calls to isolate the gangrenous parts of the state instead of tarring every region with the same brush.

    Recommend

  • sb
    Jun 19, 2012 - 11:53PM

    Look at Hong Kong, Macau and Tibet.. after 60 years, all central laws are very well accepted with minor changes. Its time the state fully integrated with rest of this great country and enjoy the benefits. Without indian support, money, infrastructure and care, Kashmir will be looted as in history by foreign forces.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jun 20, 2012 - 12:08AM

    From a constitutional and legal standpoint, its true that laws that encroach on subjects other than defense, foreign affairs and currency, should either be ratified by the J$K assembly or scrapped. Nothing stops the centre from trying to persuade Kashmiris politically to enact and ratify those laws that are outside the 3 subjects.

    If India, honored the 1952 pact, it would be the single biggest step that would delegitimize Kashmiri seperatism.

    Regarding article 370 of the constitution, India should follow legal and political means to persuade Kashmiris to scrap it by showing the benefits that would come to them from integrating much more with India. It can be a bargaining point.

    India’s position on Kashmir is legally sound and constitutional. It’s a misconception that J&K is with India because the Raja of Kashmir was a Hindu and chose India.

    Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of Kashmir National Conference, was the most popular leader and political party of Kashmir Muslims. His and his parties stature in Kashmir in 1947 was equal to stature of Mahatma Gandhi in India and Congress parties stature in 1947.

    Kashmir went India’s way because the largest political party of Kashmiris, and its leader, the so called Lion of Kashmir, Mr Sheikh Abdullah, chose India over Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • Raj - USA
    Jun 20, 2012 - 12:14AM

    Only solution: Abrogate Article 370 and bring back the Pundits to Kashmir.

    Recommend

  • niaz
    Jun 20, 2012 - 12:35AM

    I like the general spirit and goodwill of the author but I am also sorry for him forgetting the UN resolutions on kashmir ( that call for plebicite) and the deception of Pundit Nehru with Kashmairi People. Kasmiris are deeply wounded by political gimmick of the Indian leaders they have been played in to.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jun 20, 2012 - 2:00AM

    From a constitutional and legal standpoint, its true that laws that encroach on subjects other than defense, foreign affairs and currency, should either be ratified by the J$K assembly or scrapped. Nothing stops the centre from trying to persuade Kashmiris politically to enact and ratify those laws that are outside the 3 subjects.

    If India, honored the 1952 pact, it would be the single biggest step that would delegitimize Kashmiri seperatism.

    Regarding article 370 of the constitution, India should follow legal and political means to persuade Kashmiris to scrap it by showing the benefits that would come to them from integrating much more with India. It can be a bargaining point.

    India’s position on Kashmir is legally sound and constitutional. It’s a misconception that J&K is with India because the Raja of Kashmir was a Hindu and chose India.

    Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of Kashmir National Conference, was the most popular leader and political party of Kashmir Muslims. His and his parties stature in Kashmir in 1947 was equal to stature of Mahatma Gandhi in India and Congress parties stature in 1947.

    Kashmir went India’s way because the largest political party of Kashmiris, and its leader, the so called Lion of Kashmir, Mr Sheikh Abdullah, chose India over Pakistan.

    Just like the party of Frontier Gandhi, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the national conference too was a secular and socialist party during those times.

    Recommend

  • Sherlock Holmes
    Jun 20, 2012 - 2:51AM

    If plebiscite was not carried out in last 65 years, it can not be done in another 65 years for sure. India is not he same country it was during independence. It has grown leaps and bounds and within next few years will be a major world power. So plebiscite is definitely out forever. But the aspirations of kashmiris can not be brushed aside and must be addressed. India can live with everything except ceding land to unjustified / impractical demands.

    Recommend

  • neil
    Jun 20, 2012 - 3:19AM

    Repeal Article 370 ….there is no need for it ….

    Recommend

  • DB
    Jun 20, 2012 - 4:46AM

    You cannot legislate away the longing of freedom.

    Recommend

  • Harkol
    Jun 20, 2012 - 7:20AM

    India is a secular state. At first given opportunity Kashmir assembly will bring in sharia in Kashmir, as with most Muslim nations. Then what happens to Indian minorities?

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jun 20, 2012 - 7:23AM

    The other point which is of some relevence is that in overwhelming majority of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir in India – Jammu, Leh and Ladhakh , there is extremely strong pro-India sentiment. Its Hindu and Busshist majority. The seperatist elements are limited to the Kashmir valley, which territorially is about 10% of Indian Kashmir, though densely populated. In that valley too, a very large section of the population represented by political parties of National conference, PDP , Congress and communists are pro-India.

    Recommend

  • Rajendra Kalkhande
    Jun 20, 2012 - 7:49AM

    Most articles on Kashmir end up nothing more than story telling. Everyone knows who wants what. Pakistan wants entire Kashmir, India wants entire Kashmir and some Kashmiris want freedom. Pakistanis talk of UN resolutions and plebiscite, without knows what the UN resolutions are and what the conditions of plebiscite. Only practical solution to Kashmir problem is;

    . Convert the LOC into international border. and allow VISA free travel between two parts of Kashmir. End of story. Any other demand by any side is not going to materialize for another 100 years or more depending upon how things change in and around us. Moreover, keeping Kashmir dispute alive is a big industry. Many parties benefit from this dispute. I am sure they will not like this dispute to settle, lest their business gets closed.

    Recommend

  • SKChadha
    Jun 20, 2012 - 8:55AM

    Author is silent on provisions of Delhi Agreement, 1952 and Kashmir Accord,Nov. 1974 which are duly accepted by elected governments (people’s representative) of J&K. Moreover, he is also required to read Government of India Act, 1935 & Indian Independence Act, 1947 and the division of powers between State and Center in these legislations which are basis of Instrument of Accession in 1948.

    Recommend

  • Dark Knight
    Jun 20, 2012 - 9:56AM

    @DB: Will Pakistan give Balochis their freedom ? Admit it, Pakistan’s only interest in Kashmir is that it want to steal it away from India. It is never about moral support as per the aspirations of kashmiri. A country which cannot keep it’s own citizens happy can never truly wish for happiness of others.

    Recommend

  • antony
    Jun 20, 2012 - 10:06AM

    @Rajendra, I agree word by word on your solution even though as a person coming from deep south India this would be the best solution for all of India including Indian kashmir.

    Recommend

  • liyaqat
    Jun 20, 2012 - 11:27AM

    @niaz:
    Y dont u worry about Baloochistan ….enough atrocities have been committed there ..first resolve that instead of suggesting solution to us.

    Recommend

  • faraz
    Jun 20, 2012 - 12:00PM

    @Dark Knight: It would be better if you quote history and geographical importance of Kashmir for Pakistan. Kashmir is source of major Pakistani rivers. So, it’s a war of resources which will never end.

    Recommend

  • Ravi
    Jun 20, 2012 - 12:44PM

    As per yesterday’s report in Express tribune, Pakistan and China are in advanced stages for Leasing or giving 100 years control of Gilgit Baltistan to China.

    With such a plan, it will be difficult for India to undertake any negotiations with Pakistan as it will never be honoured.

    Recommend

  • rameez
    Jun 20, 2012 - 4:45PM

    @Babloo:
    if what you said is true, than why are you scared to have pelbscite and finish this problem once for all

    Recommend

  • rameez
    Jun 20, 2012 - 4:47PM

    @Rajendra Kalkhande:
    Mr khandale i would like to propose sharia instead of indian constitiution in wholw india. would that work. no. Sam way current status quo is not acceptable to kashmiri’s.which u cnt deny

    Recommend

  • rameez
    Jun 20, 2012 - 4:49PM

    @SKChadha:
    Mr chadha as per the national Spoksperson of NC , the 1974 document was never signed, and that time sheokh abdullah came out from jail and was a compromise.and infact india has been unable to present the even signed instriement of accession till dateRecommend

  • G. Din
    Jun 20, 2012 - 4:58PM

    @faraz:
    “Kashmir is source of major Pakistani rivers. So, it’s a war of resources which will never end.”
    There are many rivers in the world that cross international borders. There are rivers that arise in Tibet and flow through India. Does that mean that the lower riparian should be allowed to dictate? Not by a long shot!
    Pakistan has got to learn to live with what it has. Recommend

  • Feroz
    Jun 20, 2012 - 5:25PM

    Kashmir issue was botched up not only by both India and Pakistan but also by the Hurriyat Conference. Kashmir was always secular but because of its geography the freedom struggle got Islamisized and Pandits were driven out, killed and neutralized. If Hurriyat Conference had tried to tread a secular path and recruited Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists and promised that Kashmir would be a secular state prospects of independence would be brighter. Pakistan used terrorism, Hurriyat chose Islamism and India simply maintained status quo. No appetite really in global capitals for another country to be created on religious lines – after seeing the reality that is Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • Raj
    Jun 20, 2012 - 6:15PM

    Whatever the solution is there should be no visa restriction between both Kashmir…

    Recommend

  • Hindustani
    Jun 20, 2012 - 6:34PM

    Feroz

    Well said. The era of countries being formed by killing and driving out religious minorities is over.

    Recommend

  • 1984
    Jun 20, 2012 - 7:42PM

    @rameez:
    Why dont you read the plebisicite document from a neutral source??

    The first condition for holding the plebisicite is that Pakistan army should leave POK,and India should keep a minimum army in Kashmir.

    Unfortunately,in 1950s,Pakistan refused to vacate their army and thats the reason why Nehru didnt allow plebisicite.

    If Pakistan do believe that Kashmiris would vote for Pakistan because of their ummah.Why dont they leave Kashmir,conduct a plebisicite and occupy the entire Kashmir without any problems from India???

    Recommend

  • not-an-indian
    Jun 20, 2012 - 7:49PM

    Attention-seeking, pakistan-bashing Indians hogging these pages so much so that the intended audience is no where to be found. God job ET editors.

    Recommend

  • usman
    Jun 20, 2012 - 8:02PM

    India cannot claim to represent the interests of the Kashmiri people and their democratic rights because it refuses to let them decide their future. Its relentless pressure on the Maharajah, as well as Hari Singh’s inability to properly lead, nullifies the relevance and significance of the Treaty of Accession. That the Indian army landed in Kashmir even before Hari Singh had conceded his nation to India proves it never intended to respect his decision anyways. India has ignored the rules set out in the partition of the sub-continent, dividing the region by ethnicity. Instead, the leaders of India have sought only to use Kashmir to illustrate their superiority in the subcontinent. As long as India continues to act on flawed and aggressive notions, the Kashmir conflict will not be resolved.

    India claims to represent democracy in the dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. If upholding democracy was indeed India’s motivation in their actions over Kashmir, one has to question why a plebiscite has never been issued. The Kashmiris have always demanded one, and India has always resisted. Even Nehru has conceded that Kashmiris do not want to remain under Indian occupation. When asked about never holding a plebiscite in Kashmir in 1965, Nehru responded, “Kashmir would vote to join Pakistan and we would lose it. No Indian government responsible for agreeing to a plebiscite would survive.” This logic is more fitting for describing an autocracy, not a nation claming to represent democracy

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jun 20, 2012 - 8:18PM

    @Rameez
    You wrote

    “if what you said is true, than why are you scared to have pelbscite and finish this problem once for all”

    Two reasons

    A. India would have gladly held a plesbicite on Jammu, Indian Kashmir, Leh and Ladhakh and would do so today. If the only two options were 1. Join India 2. Join Pakistan, India , as all independent opinion polls conducted in Indian part of J&K show, would win it.
    However, seperatists and Pakistan wants PoK, Gilgit and Baltistan to be added to the plesbicite. That is not acceptable to India because.
    B. While India has protected the ethnic composition if J&K by making article 370 of the constitution which bars Indians from other parts of country from settling in J&K and voting there , no such prohibition has been enforced in PoK, Gilgit and Baltistan. The ethnic composition of PoK, Gilgit and Baltistan has been changed by Pakistan allowing outsiders to settle there. The UN resolution required that ethnic composition of the state not be tampered with. Ethnic composition of PoK, Gilgit and Baltistan has been tampered rendering plesbicite option invalid.

    Besides, Whole of J&K , acceded to India in a legal and constitutional process approved by the largest elected political party of J&K in 1948 : National conference of Sheikh Abdullah, J&K assembly and the King of Kashmir. What UN may have to say then is only advisory in nature and not binding on India.

    Recommend

  • faraz
    Jun 20, 2012 - 10:55PM

    @Babloo: I believe what you said about protecting ethnic composition in Kashmir is totally wrong. India has played same game in Kashmir as Israel did in Palestine i,e, converted majority to minority by externals to settle in. That’s the reason, many Indians are now in favor of plebiscite as they know that outcome would be in favor of India.

    Recommend

  • G. Din
    Jun 20, 2012 - 11:01PM

    @rameez: to SKChadha
    “…infact india has been unable to present the even signed instriement of accession till date”
    Here is your opportunity to embarrass India. Take her to International Court and demand that she produce the proper Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja of Kashmir! What a golden opportunity! Avail it!
    @usman:
    “Its (India’s) relentless pressure on the Maharajah, as well as Hari Singh’s inability to properly lead, nullifies the relevance and significance of the Treaty of Accession.”
    If India does produce that Instrument of Accession, ask the Court to pronounce on the validity or legality of that Instrument. You would have your decision and India shall abide by it. Case closed!
    “When asked about never holding a plebiscite in Kashmir in 1965, Nehru responded, “Kashmir would vote to join Pakistan and we would lose it. No Indian government responsible for agreeing to a plebiscite would survive.” “
    Well, you can submit this statement by Nehru also as buttressing your case at the International Court. It would be so damaging to India, won’t it be?
    If you don’t, or won’t, go to the International Court, then SHUT UP because you would have lost all moral justification about talking about it!Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jun 21, 2012 - 12:55AM

    The insutrument of accession is available for public viewing in a museum in Delhi.
    You can google that.

    Recommend

  • Babloo
    Jun 21, 2012 - 1:04AM

    @Faraz,
    You are mistaken. Indians from outside cannot settle in J&K. Period.
    You cannot buy land. You cannot vote.
    Yes, Indians wish that the government of India had allowed Indians from outside J&K to settle in J&K and scrap the article 370 that prohibits that.
    But Government of India has not allowed that.
    In fact, the % of Kashmiri Muslims as compared to Kashmiri Hindus has increased very significantly since 1948 because in 1990-ties, the militants killed and threatened the Hindu Kashmiri Pundit familes out of the Kashmir valley when 500,000 Kashmiri Pundits fled from the valley.
    These are facts you can easily check from any independent sources on the web.
    Numbers and % of population 1948 and now, don’t lie.

    Recommend

  • Zillur Rahman
    Jun 21, 2012 - 1:51AM

    Jinnah coerced the Khanate of Kalat into joining Pakistan. Islamabad rules Balochistan solely to loot its natural resources. Jammu and Kashmir is very very different. Article 370 protects Jammu and Kashmir from exploitation from across the provincial border. Pakistan should first ensure democratic rule not just for Balochs but for all Pakistani citizens. And for that it needs to free itself from the stranglehold of its military.

    Recommend

  • Mir Agha
    Jun 21, 2012 - 4:51AM

    Independence is the logical conclusion, and one that the indian chatterati must come to terms with. Lying, cheating, and stalling hasn’t stopped the Kashmir Movement. Accepting Indian terrorism/boundaries hardly falls into “sky is the limit” rhetoric from the anti-Kashmiri Indians, which Nayyar certainly is.

    Recommend

  • Kataria
    Jun 21, 2012 - 5:02AM

    Fairy tales won’t be accepted here. A referendum in IOK would yield an overwhelming majority (academic polls show 95-98%+) for Pakistan if Pakistan and India were the only two choices. The only chance India has in the future is to cut-off the valley and Chenab regions and fully incorporate the non-Kashmiri parts. A decision taken illegally by a hindu dictator which in no way is valid upon the people of Kashmir is taken too seriously by the author – leading to this incoherent spiel. The simple fact is the the mythical “instrument of accession” doesn’t exist, and even if it does exist, is not binding upon the people of Kashmir. These facts the author misses out on. The solution is referendum to become part of Pakistan or India (one India is afraid of as it wants to deny the voices of Kashmir), or independence to all that would like to constitute a sovereign state of Kashmir (preferable as only the Kashmiris “win”).

    Recommend

  • Kashmiri
    Jun 21, 2012 - 5:08AM

    Ignoring the Kashmiris is nothing new to the Indians. The solution is simple, it must withdraw its occupation forces which have terrorized the region so that Kashmir can attain freedom – which it will anyways. Pakistan has to maintain its servicemen to protect the people of Kashmir against indian aggression.

    Recommend

  • not-an-indian
    Jun 21, 2012 - 5:10AM

    Well, now that the wise Indians have spoken on these page, Kashmir issue is settled. Kashmiris must continue to suffer indefinitely.

    Recommend

  • Zillur Rahman
    Jun 21, 2012 - 5:11AM

    Pakistan’s ruling elite has always seen itself as heir to the Mughals of yesteryears. Buoyed by its asinine trust in the “martial races theory” authored by the British colonialists for their “divide et imperia” games, Pakistan’s ruling elite, on the morrow of partition, cried itself hoarse with inanities like, “Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan”.

    Pakistan’s ruling elite wanted it all – Hyderabad, Junagarh, Jammu & Kashmir and Balochistan. To this day, its fondest wish remains to fly the Pakistan flag atop the Red Fort! It is Pakistan’s ruling elite that indulged in ethnic cleansing in 1947 to the point that it now has a non-Muslim population that is only an insignificant fraction of its pre-1947 percentage. And, to add insult to the injury, it tried its hands at genocide in the erstwhile province of East Pakistan because it wanted the land but not the people who were conveniently dubbed “infidels and half-Muslims”.

    Recommend

  • Khayal
    Jun 21, 2012 - 5:36AM

    India having anything to do with the “defense” of Kashmir is pretty ironic. Suffice to say Kashmiris don’t need or want any of it.

    Recommend

  • not-an-indian
    Jun 21, 2012 - 8:50AM

    @Zillur Rahman : must you pretend to be what you are not.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Jun 21, 2012 - 11:35AM

    @faraz: ” believe what you said about protecting ethnic composition in Kashmir is totally wrong. India has played same game in Kashmir as Israel did in Palestine i,e, converted majority to minority by externals to settle in.”

    Please google “Article 370 of indian constitution”. See what you come up with.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Jun 21, 2012 - 11:38AM

    @Kataria: “Fairy tales won’t be accepted here. A referendum in IOK would yield an overwhelming majority (academic polls show 95-98%+) for Pakistan if Pakistan and India were the only two choices.”

    Please provide lik to these polls.

    Recommend

  • ayesha_khan
    Jun 21, 2012 - 11:43AM

    @not-an-indian: “@Zillur Rahman : must you pretend to be what you are not.”

    Have you considered that maybe he is not pretending? Maybe like me he is a patriotic Indian Muslim? You have been so indoctrinated into the idea of “Hindu India” that whenever you see a Muslim name you assume it is a Pakistani or an Indian masquerading as a Pakistani – forgetting that 150 million Muslims proudly call themselves Indian.

    Recommend

  • Cynical
    Jun 21, 2012 - 12:13PM

    @not-an-indian

    @Zillur Rahman: must you pretend to be what you are not.

    Where do you find the pretence in his comments?Can you elaborate please.

    Recommend

  • karma
    Jun 21, 2012 - 6:07PM

    Ayesha_khan: “…forgetting that 150 million Muslims proudly call themselves Indian.”

    Mi’lady, it is 180million+ in 2011. If you check the demographic distribution then you’ll realize Muslims are the fastest growing religious group in India, and their percentage increased from about 12% in 1947 to 14% in 2001, perhaps more in 2011. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DemographicsofIndia#Religious_demographics

    Recommend

  • Meraj
    Jun 21, 2012 - 8:03PM

    They will only add to the problem…they went out on thier own…they need to come back on thier own @Raj – USA:

    Recommend

More in Opinion