E D I T O R I A L   P A G E

EDITORIALS

Desperate terrorists
There are clear signs of desperation in the ranks of Kashmir terrorists. Saturday’s attack on a bus carrying Armymen and their family members from Srinagar to Jammu was just another heinous act they committed to prove that they were still on their dirty job in the valley. A day earlier terrorists stormed a CRPF camp resulting in the death of six jawans and two Lashkar-e-Toiba activists.

Tehelka aftershocks
Tehelka reverberations continue to rattle the establishment. Parliament was jolted last week over the issue of the Tehelka Commission judge, Justice K. Venkataswami, accepting the post of Chairman of the Authority on Advance Rulings of Excise and Customs.

OPINION

Fractured transfer of power
Challenges before China’s new leadership
V.P. Dutt
The 16th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party has ushered in a new leadership, a new General Secretary of the party, a new Politburo, and a new Standing Committee of the Politburo (the real rulers of the country). On the surface it is an orderly shift of leadership but in fact, it is a patchy, inconclusive and fractured transfer of power. 

MIDDLE

A true officer of the government
Kiran Krishan
My late grandfather was a responsible officer of the state and made no bones about being a servant of the people as today. When I got to know him, he had retired and his best years were behind him. He still had a booming voice, which put the fear of god in us kids, and an occasional recalcitrant servant.

POINT OF LAW

Ex-CJI breaks his silence, but skips vital facts
Anupam Gupta
Rattled by incessant media criticism, ex-Chief Justice of India, Justice B.N. Kirpal broke his self-imposed lockjaw last week, giving a front-page interview to a local newspaper on the action taken — or not taken — by him against the three High Court judges indicted by the former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Arun B. Saharya, for their involvement in the Punjab Public Service Commission scam.

TRENDS & POINTERS

Coping with parents’ divorce
Researchers at Washington State University have found that support from friends, neighbours and schools can be just as important as parental support for teenagers coping with the effects of their parents’ divorce and possible remarriage.

• Self harm common in teens

EDITORIALS

Desperate terrorists

There are clear signs of desperation in the ranks of Kashmir terrorists. Saturday’s attack on a bus carrying Armymen and their family members from Srinagar to Jammu was just another heinous act they committed to prove that they were still on their dirty job in the valley. A day earlier terrorists stormed a CRPF camp resulting in the death of six jawans and two Lashkar-e-Toiba activists. This was for the second time when the CRPF had been targeted after the installation of the Mufti Mohammad Sayeed ministry in the troubled state on November 2. On November 11 Hizb-ul-Mujahideen men blasted a CRPF vehicle with an improvised explosive device, killing seven personnel of the force at Ramsoo on the Srinagar-Jammu National Highway. In fact, militants responded to the formation of the new government by attacking Mufti Sayeed’s house barely three hours after he took the oath of office. It seems the terrorist outfits are competing with one another to satisfy their masters across the border. That is why three of them—the Harkatul Jihad-e-Islami, the Jamiatul Mujahideen and the Hizbul Mujahideen—have claimed responsibility for the latest incident in which a few women and children also lost their lives.

The terrorists’ desperation is based on the changing ground reality. The Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections have provided incontrovertible proof that there is little buyer support for the terrorist industry in the state. The enthusiasm with which people participated in the poll showed that they were all for peace and the revival of economic activity. The militant leadership, which had given a boycott call, was openly snubbed by the voters as they refused to take its destructive advice seriously. Leaders of certain terrorist outfits themselves admitted the other day that the Kashmir crisis could not be resolved with the help of the gun, and hence their offer to return to the social mainstream. However, the new government will have to tread cautiously. Pakistan and its agents on this side of the border have their undeniable vested interests in the disturbed condition in the valley. It is true that terrorism is struggling for breath in the absence of local support to a great extent. But the changing climate requires urgent steps for removing the basic grievances of the public. The people are interested in increased opportunities for jobs and self-employment and an end to the atmosphere of fear. Mufti Sayeed seems to be quite conscious of these problems as he has already initiated certain measures for the purpose. But the government must issue a stern warning that it will be as tough as possible with those refusing to shun the path of violence. Terrorists, after all, deserve no sympathy. 

Tehelka aftershocks

Tehelka reverberations continue to rattle the establishment. Parliament was jolted last week over the issue of the Tehelka Commission judge, Justice K. Venkataswami, accepting the post of Chairman of the Authority on Advance Rulings of Excise and Customs. As if that was not embarrassing enough, the situation has been further complicated by the resignation of the judge from both posts. Unfortunately, the name of the judiciary has also been dragged into the controversy, in spite of the fact that the appointment of Justice Venkataswami was indeed done in consultation with and on the advice of the Chief Justice of India. While the timing of the hue and cry raised in Parliament raises suspicions - the retired judge had been working on dual posts since May - it is also true that basic norms of propriety should not be breached while making such appointments. Even if the new quasi-judicial job connected with the Finance Ministry was given to the judge without in any way trying to influence him, the government should have been conscious of the fact that such a spin could be easily given to the assignment. What made tongues wag even more was the fact that the government had already launched a full-fledged drive to browbeat everyone connected with the Tehelka portal through a slew of enquiries and allegations. Justice Venkataswami on his part is said to be unhappy that the government did not handle the issue properly and also did not defend his appointment forcefully, despite the fact that everything had been done in accordance with law and as per the recommendations of the CJI. The end result is that the government is caught in a web of its own making. The neglect of the old saying that justice should not only be done but also seen to be done may cost it dearly.

Whatever curious turns the government-opposition spat may take in the days to come, the controversy has derailed the Tehelka probe. The Venkataswami Commission was constituted by the Centre on March 24 last year to investigate the Tehelka portal’s expose on corruption in defence deals. It was also to find out whether there was any deviation in the purchase procedures and whether the imperatives of national security had been taken into consideration while making the defence transactions. Its four-month term was extended repeatedly and the present term was to expire on January 23 next. Crucial witnesses like Defence Minister George Fernandes, former BJP President Bangaru Laxman and former Samata Party president Jaya Jaitly had already been examined and the enquiry was now at a critical stage. If his resignation is accepted, it will be a big setback to the probe. It may take many months before another judge is appointed. Even after that, it may be a long time before the enquiry gathers momentum.

OPINION

Fractured transfer of power
Challenges before China’s new leadership
V.P. Dutt

The 16th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party has ushered in a new leadership, a new General Secretary of the party, a new Politburo, and a new Standing Committee of the Politburo (the real rulers of the country). On the surface it is an orderly shift of leadership but in fact, it is a patchy, inconclusive and fractured transfer of power. Fiftynine-year-old Hu Jintao, handpicked by Deng Xiaping during his lifetime, is the new General Secretary of the party but has not been allowed the kind of power that Mr Jiang Zemin enjoyed. Through intense lobbying and manoeuvring and the exercise of heavy pressure from military leaders, Mr Jiang has been re-elected Chairman of the all-powerful Central Military Commission. He has also successfully manoeuvred to expand the membership of the Standing Committee from seven to nine — five of them are his own proteges, including Mr Wu Bangguo, suddenly elevated as number two in the new hierarchy of leadership, and Mr Zheng Qinghong, Mr Jiang’s chief political adviser. Mr Hu Jintao is only one of the three Vice-Chairmen of the Central Military Commission, the other two being Generals Guo Boxiong and Cao Gangchauan. Even when Mr Hu Jintao becomes President of the Republic in March next year, he will not be commanding the army and will continue to have to take care of the views and wishes of Mr Jiang. He will have less power than even the chairman of a corporation board. He will have to strike alliances among the new leadership and at the worst will have to wait for another four to five years before assuming full powers.

Two things are, however, clear. There will be no major changes in the fundamentals of the reform movement as well as in foreign policy. China will continue integrating with the world economy, pursuing a moderate foreign policy, striving for a peaceful environment and expanding relations with the USA.

China also continues to be largely run by technocrats, “engineers-turned-politicians”. Mr Hu Jintao, Mr Wu Bangguo, Mr Wen Jiabao and Mr Jiang Zemin’s close confidant Zheng Qinghong, slated to head the party secretariat, are all trained engineers. These men at the top do not constitute the entire spectrum of the power structure of China; that includes hundreds of provincial party secretaries, governors and vice-governors of provinces, army officers, mayors, deputy mayors, etc. Among the more influential groups in this power structure are the sons and daughters and sons-in-law and other close kith and kin of senior leaders popularly known as the “princelings” as well as erstwhile secretaries and chiefs of staff of the top leaders. Deng Xiaoping, in order to secure the consent of veteran communist leaders to retire so as to make way for younger blood, had to agree to a demand from one of them that each senior, revolutionary veteran should be allowed to nominate one child to a high-ranking official post.

The real issue in China, however, is not who but how the new generation of power-holders would respond to the very serious problems facing China. These problems relate to the political field as well as to the social and economic fields. They have assumed serious dimensions despite or perhaps because of high economic growth. On the one hand, a highly educated middle class, both knowledgeable and ambitious, has arisen to demand a greater share of the political pie, and on the other an increasingly impoverished and sullen peasantry is beginning to demand the right to elect its own representatives to protect its interests. According to one estimate, there are nearly a 100 million Chinese with a net income of at least $3,000 which is growing at about 20 per cent a year. There are also five to six million Chinese with personal assets of $100,000 or more and, perhaps, some 10,000 persons who have assets running into a million dollars. The private economy contributes more than half the gross national product.

Mr Jiang Zemin, in order to preserve party dominance and absorb the new pressures, has advanced a new theoretical framework, given the high sounding sobriquet of “three represents”, which one western observer has described as “one size fits all ideology”. The party’s mission now is to represent “advanced production forces” (read capitalists and technocrats), “advanced cultural forces” (read intellectuals) and “the broad masses of the people”, meaning everybody else. A former associate of the ousted premier Zhou Zeyang, now living in Hong Kong, wrote sarcastically that the “three represents” meant that the party “represents the rich, the powerful and the (new) nobility”.

The Chinese Communist Party’s theoretical journal, Qiu Shi, asserted recently that China’s private entrepreneurs belong to a new “social stratum”, but “cannot and will not develop into a new social class”, because “in a socialist economy, the state controls the national economy’s lifelines”. In further refinement of these theses, Mr Li Junru, Mr Jiang Zemin’s chief theorist, said in mid-July this year in a speech at the Peoples’ University that it was not the economic basis of ownership that was important but that the people should be content. Taxation, and not ownership, was the key, he said and went on to concede that the private sector would become “the new form of the socialistic economy in 20 years’ time”.

More daunting were the socio-economic problems thrown up by the Chinese pattern of high economic growth. The Editor of Chinese magazine Caijing has calculated that since the 1990s surplus labour in China’s rural areas increased by 16 million people each year on a base of 130 million, with one-third of the rural population of 934 million lacking full employment. Additionally, by June this year there were 26.11 million laid-off workers seeking employment, besides the fresh urban entrants into the labour market. The consequence was the increasing socio-economic polarisation of society.

The Peoples’ Daily published in August the findings of the Economic Institute of the Academy of Social Sciences, a government think-tank, pointing out that the Gini coefficient — a key gauge of income disparities — had reached 0.39, close to the recognised danger level of 0.40. The economic czar of China, Prime Minister Zhu Rongji, followed a strategy of keeping the momentum of economic growth through massive infusion of capital in the economy, a high-level of deficit financing and even kickstarting infrastructure projects of doubtful viability.

A study by an international investment bank, CLSA, has revealed that the true ratio of China’s public debt to the gross domestic product is of the order of 139 per cent — and not 23 per cent as officially acknowledged. It also claims that much of the country’s capital spending has been wasted. The report calculated that while China’s investment ratio of 40 per cent of the GDP produces an economic growth of 7 per cent, India’s investment rate of 25 per cent generates a GDP growth of 5 per cent. How they respond to these challenges will test the mettle of the new leaders.

The Foreign Office should be closely studying the new leadership and seizing every opportunity of expanding contacts and relations with it.

The writer is a former Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Delhi University, and a former Member of Parliament.

MIDDLE

A true officer of the government
Kiran Krishan

My late grandfather was a responsible officer of the state and made no bones about being a servant of the people as today. When I got to know him, he had retired and his best years were behind him. He still had a booming voice, which put the fear of god in us kids, and an occasional recalcitrant servant. Grandfather was particularly proud of his career as an officer and liked to relate his experiences. Being a natural raconteur, he always had eager listeners in us.

“An officer ought to serve with diligence and not show undue favour to anyone,” he would often say though I suspect, in his time, he was not above enjoying ordinary perks, to which his status as a responsible and respected member of the government entitled him. With cases of bribery, nepotism and undue favours hogging the news daily, I wonder what he would have felt at the sorry state of ethos of the present day officers.

“In my time, sometime an officer accepted money but he could not be bribed,” he would have said and told us his favourite story of the honest police thanedar (Station House Officer).

“Tota Singh was an honest police officer. He never beat up an innocent nor did he ever spare a badmash. Still there were stories going around that he was freely accepting money and that too sitting in the police station in front of everyone. Unbelievable, isn’t it?” Grandfather asked. We nodded vigorously.

“But it was true. Tota Singh never asked for gratification but did not refuse money when it was pressed upon him. But he made sure it was khara (sound) money and not counterfeit. He had a weakness for the silver rupee and tested each coin for sound by tossing it in the air with his thumb and forefinger.”

“What else is bribery?” we would indignantly ask.

“You children are naïve. Tota never did anyone any favour and that is why those crooks who offered him money reported against him to his superiors and Tota Singh even had to face a judge.”

Tota Singh had sound instincts and training. On being questioned about accepting money openly in the thana , he told the judge: “Sir, I am a senior and experienced police officer. Even If I took a bribe, do you think I will be foolish enough to do so openly as alleged?” This appeared to be a very reasonable defence. The judge thought for a long time and acquitted Tota Singh on the strength of his testimony. Later, the judge summoned Tota Singh to his chambers and wanted to know the facts — strictly off the record.

“A judge is next to god and I will never tell a lie in front of your honour,” supplicated Tota Singh humbly. “Yes I did accept money from some who insisted on parting with it but I have never been bribed,” said he.

“What is this story about your testing the offered coins by tossing them in the air,” asked the judge.

“Sir, only dishonest people offer money. I just wanted to make sure that I was not cheated.”

“But, I am told that you never did anyone’s work despite having been paid.”

“Oh that! I accept money being an officer of the government and not for showing favours.”

POINT OF LAW

Ex-CJI breaks his silence, but skips vital facts
Anupam Gupta

Rattled by incessant media criticism, ex-Chief Justice of India, Justice B.N. Kirpal broke his self-imposed lockjaw last week, giving a front-page interview to a local newspaper on the action taken—or not taken—by him against the three High Court judges indicted by the former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Arun B. Saharya, for their involvement in the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) scam.

Published, interestingly, only in the Chandigarh edition of the newspaper — the Delhi edition of the paper missing the story altogether on November 20, and carrying a truncated version the next day—the interview stands out for its selective disclosure of facts.

That Justice Kirpal has chosen finally to clear his position on a matter of the highest public importance is understandable, nay, worthy of appreciation. But that he has chosen to disclose only some facts, skipping over many others not only relevant but vital to the context, is both painful and disturbing.

It is difficult not to be provoked by Justice Kirpal’s interview and the manner in which he has sought to delegitimise Justice Saharya’s inquiry report even while claiming to act upon it. But if I join issue with him today, it is out of a sense of responsibility rather than of provocation.

And out of a conviction that the cause of justice, and of the judiciary as an institution, is better served by speaking the truth than by shying away from it.

The essence of Justice Kirpal’s position, as stated by him to the newspaper, is the distinction he has drawn between the case of one of the indicted judges, Justice Amarbir Singh Gill, and that of the other two (Justice M.L. Singhal and Justice Mehtab Singh Gill).

“(T)he in-house formula requires that two senior Judges be involved in the inquiry,” Justice Kirpal told the paper. “While in Justice Amarbir’s case Justice (J.L.) Gupta and Justice (N.K.) Sodhi were involved, in the case of the remaining two Judges, nothing of this sort was done. In one case the in-house formula was involved, in the other it was not. I don’t know why this distinction was made. But it was made.”

Both Justice Gupta and Justice Sodhi had also given “negative reports” against Justice Amarbir Singh Gill, the former CJI disclosed, justifying the recommendation for Justice Gill’s immediate transfer (to the Guwahati High Court), while indictment of the other two Judges had been referred to Supreme Court judge, Justice S. Rajendra Babu, for further consideration.

Leaving aside for the moment the settled legal position regarding the in-house procedure (which does not contemplate involvement of any puisne judge by the Chief Justice of a High Court), Justice Kirpal’s reference to Justice J.L. Gupta and Justice N.K. Sodhi is factually incorrect, besides being factually incomplete.

Both Justice Gupta and Justice Sodhi were members, but not the only members, of a committee set up by Chief Justice Saharya in May this year to examine the answerbooks of Justice Amarbir Singh Gill’s daughter, Ms Amol Gill, who was selected and appointed to the PCS (Judicial) in 2001 after an examination held by the PPSC the previous year.

Headed by Justice G.S. Singhvi, the seniormost puisne judge of the High Court, the four-member committee included, besides Justice Gupta and Justice Sodhi, Justice V.K. Bali as well. Less than a page long, the committee’s report is signed by all the four members.

Why then has Justice Kirpal chosen to name only Justice Gupta and Justice Sodhi, leaving out Justice Singhvi and Justice Bali?

It is possible, of course, that the former CJI had spoken independently to Justice Gupta and Justice Sodhi, or that they had spoken or “reported” directly to him, independently of the committee and of Justice Saharya.

If that be so — though this is pure speculation and nothing more — why has Justice Kirpal not said so, in so many words? Why has he chosen instead to give the impression, and a conscious impression, that it was Justice Saharya (rather than anybody else) who had involved Justice Gupta and Justice Sodhi in his inquiry against Justice Amarbir Singh Gill?

And having given that impression — an impression which is clearly misleading — proceeded, in the same breath, to fault Justice Saharya for not having involved the two judges in his inquiry against Justice Singhal and Justice Mehtab Singh Gill as well.

Neither Justice Gupta nor Justice Sodhi, it may be added, nor the other two members of the committee set up by Justice Saharya had access to any of the reports submitted to the Chief Justice by the Intelligence team headed by ADGP A.P. Bhatnagar, the team whose yeomanly efforts in getting to the bottom of the PPSC scam and the Judges’ involvement in it remain a permanent eye-sore for all those who swear by judicial accountability in theory but do everything they can — from subtle disinformation to outright collaboration with the most corrupt elements in the executive — to frustrate it in practice.

None of these intelligence reports were shared by Justice Saharya with the committee nor was the committee asked or required to go into anything other than the answerbooks (and corresponding question papers) of Ms Amol Gill.

Nor indeed did the committee headed by Justice Singhvi say anything in its report about or against Justice Amarbir Singh Gill himself, the report being limited to an assessment of the candidate’s performance (as reflected in her answerbooks) and of the reasonableness of the award of marks to her.

An expression of the High Court’s administrative control (under Article 235 of the Constitution) over the subordinate judiciary — Ms Amol Gill was later sacked by the full court of the High Court, alongwith 38 other subordinate judicial officers selected by Ravi Sidhu’s PPSC between 1999 and 2001, whose answerbooks on a sample basis were also called for and examined — the setting up of the four-member committee by Justice Saharya and the limited task assigned to it can, by no stretch of reasoning, be construed instead as an expression of the in-house procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in 1995 in Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee’s case for taking action against errant High Court judges.

With great respect to the former Chief Justice of India, reading Bhattacharjee’s case into Article 235 would be an absurdity too plain to be countenanced.

Coming now to Justice Kirpal’s annoyance at the charge that he sat over Justice Saharya’s report and his disclosure of his recommendation for the transfer of Justice Amarbir Singh Gill within 10 days of his having received the report (on August 26), I would like, in all humility, to remind the reader of something I wrote in this column in my very last article on November 11.

“There is no doubt,” I said, “that Justice Kirpal had gone through Justice Saharya’s report before the latter retired in mid-September, a fact on which the reader can take my word even though it would be imprudent to divulge any details.”

Much as I did not wish then to divulge any details, I am compelled now, after Justice Kirpal’s interview, to share with the reader Justice Saharya’s reaction to the CJI’s proposal to transfer Justice Amarbir Singh Gill, a proposal that reached Justice Saharya’s desk in Chandigarh on September 13, two days before he retired as Chief Justice of the High Court.

Taken aback by the proposal, which made no mention of his report to the CJI and was confined to one of the three Judges he had indicted, Justice Saharya picked up the phone and spoke immediately to Justice Kirpal.

Upon the CJI confirming that the proposal did, in fact, emanate from his inquiry report, Justice Saharya conveyed to the CJI, in clear and unmistakable terms, his concern that such action in isolation—against only one of the three Judges, that is—would be misunderstood and would send wrong signals.

It would, Justice Saharya told the CJI, be looked at as a cover-up and as a diversion of focus from the two other judges, Justice Singhal and Justice Mehtab Singh Gill, especially the latter.

Every word of Justice Kirpal’s interview to the newspaper — his attempt to draw a distinction between Justice Amarbir Singh Gill, on the one hand, and Justice Singhal and Justice Mehtab Singh Gill, on the other, his thundering silence regarding Justice Singhal and highly strained defence of Justice Mehtab Singh Gill, making him out to be more sinned against than sinning—demonstrates the validity of Justice Saharya’s apprehensions.

I apologise to Justice Saharya for breach of confidentiality but I owe it to him and to history to set the record straight.

TRENDS & POINTERS

Coping with parents’ divorce

Researchers at Washington State University have found that support from friends, neighbours and schools can be just as important as parental support for teenagers coping with the effects of their parents’ divorce and possible remarriage.

The study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, shows that families raise their children with the help of other support systems and that outside help can buffer teenagers from family turmoil.

For the study, the researchers examined 2,011 adolescents in grades seven, nine , and 11 from intact, blended and divorced single-parent families.

They looked at measures that affected the adolescents, such as low parental support, low parental monitoring, peer support, school attachment and neighbour support.

The adolescents were asked about their alcohol and tobacco use, risk-taking behaviour, depression, sadness, suicidal thoughts and low self-esteem.

The researchers found that parental support and monitoring helped decrease the adolescents’ damaging behaviour and negative thoughts.

It also shows that attachment to school lowered the risk of destructive behaviour and was the strongest non-family factor in predicting adolescent mental well-being.

Support from parents was less effective in reducing depressed feelings for adolescents in divorced single-parent families than for teens in intact families.

The study also found that peer support acted as a buffer against low parental support of teens in divorced single-parent families.

The study shows that teens experiencing family parental troubles need to have broad social networks that extend beyond their parents, the researchers conclude. ANI

Self harm common in teens

A new study published in the British Medical Journal says that the act deliberate self harm is a common phenomena among adolescents, especially girls.

More than 6,000 students aged 15 and 16 years from 41 schools in England were asked to fill in questionnaires that sought information about lifestyle, deliberate self harm, suicidal thoughts and self esteem.

It was found that overall, 398 pupils (seven per cent) had carried out an act of deliberate self harm in the previous year. However, only 13 per cent of episodes had resulted in presentation to hospital.

Deliberate self harm was nearly four times more common in girls than in boys. In girls, the factors associated with deliberate self harm included recent self harm by friends or family members, drug misuse, depression, anxiety, impulsivity and low self esteem. In boys, the factors were suicidal behaviour in friends and family members, drug use and low self esteem.

According to the authors, the findings support the need for school-based mental health initiatives, targeting self esteem issues, depression, anxiety and impulsivity. Further potential approaches could include educating students about mental health problems and routine screening for those at risk. ANI

SPIRITUAL NUGGETS

The Atmic Truth embraces and integrates the whole world. Hence all mankind belongs to one family, whereby the entire humanity in the world is the kith and kin of God i.e, universal family (Vishav Kutambi), thereby inculcating sense of fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man.

You cannot escape the consequences and results of past bad deeds. They will always keep haunting you. Everything is reaction reflection and resound. Indian culture, being eternal elevating and steadfast, its glory remains undiminished and cannot be ravaged by time. It exhorts us, let us move together, let us grow together, let us grow in intelligence together, let us live in harmony with each other without giving room for conflict. Since same God resides in every heart, one should love, help, cooperate with one another. Love is a basic common denominator and a guiding light of the universe’s common divine heritage.

You must develop forbearance. God’s name is a catalyst for this. Develop forbearance and gain compassion. All strengths and powers are in India. It is impossible to take single step without the grace of God. Spiritual satisfaction makes life worth living.

—Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, Discourses.

***

— Yogi M.K. Spencer, How I Found God? Discourse no. 62