 |
|
Father and sons SDM or kickboxer? |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Irish solution
Foreign policy options
To my 26 daughters
Bangladesh politics as uncertain as ever Tony Blair’s legacy of an unwanted war Delhi Durbar
|
Father and sons WHAT happened at Madurai on Wednesday is mind-boggling. A Tamil newspaper published the findings of a survey it conducted on who the successor of Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi could be. The report so angered the elder son of the Chief Minister that his supporters, some of whom hold responsible posts like Mayor, descended on the newspaper office in protest while the unruly among them set it on fire. Three innocent employees of Dinakaran were asphyxiated. What angered the supporters of Mr Karunanidhi’s elder son, Mr M. Azhagiri, was that he figured virtually nowhere as a claimant to the Chief Minister’s throne, not even in Madurai, which he considers as his fiefdom. They believed that the survey was manipulated to favour his younger son, Mr M.K. Stalin, and a dark horse, Mr Dayanidhi Maran, a Central minister, who owns the paper and the Sun TV network. Whatever be the rationale for conducting the survey when the Chief Minister is celebrating his golden jubilee as an MLA and the methodology adopted, the violence Mr Azhagiri’s supporters resorted to is utterly condemnable. Television clippings of the build-up to the arson suggest that the police remained mute spectators when the arsonists went on the rampage. Obviously, the police could not summon up courage to nip the violence when it began for fear that it would antagonise the Chief Minister’s son who has considerable political and muscle power in Madurai. By the time the police got the green signal for action from Chennai, three poor employees of Dinakaran had lost their lives. The Chief Minister has announced a compensation of Rs 2 lakh which amounts to rubbing salt into the wounds of the bereaved families. The attack on the newspaper amounts to an attack on the freedom of the Press. The government cannot get away by announcing a paltry compensation to the families concerned. It should do everything possible to ensure that every person involved in the violence and those who instigated them, even if they include the Chief Minister’s son, are brought to book and made accountable for the losses. Freedom of the Press is a right obtained through struggles right from the days of the Raj and retained against pressures of the kind exerted by M.G. Ramachandrans, Rajiv Gandhis and Jagannath Mishras. It cannot be sacrificed at the altar of the family politics of the enlarged first family of Tamil Nadu. |
|
SDM or kickboxer? Everyone in Chandigarh is familiar with the brutality capacities of the police force. But even they were shocked out of wits on seeing the photograph of SDM Ankur Garg kicking a man, who was already being beaten up by an angry policemen, during an agitation by residents of Janata Colony, Nayagaon, last week over the construction of a wall on the road which links Nayagaon with the PGI-Mullanpur road. There could not have been a more telltale proof of bureaucratic arrogance and brutality. When the public made a hue and cry, senior officials conveniently said after an “inquiry” that the officer had acted in “self-defence”. After all, the bureaucracy is a well-knit organisation with a long history of protecting its members. And who was the “threat” to the SDM? An unarmed 13-year-old boy named Bittu! To add insult to injury, the boy has been charged by the police with an attempt to murder. There are also other charges like rioting and causing hurt to a government official on duty. The boy is now in a juvenile home. There could not be a bigger travesty. Could this boy be termed a killer by any stretch of the imagination? Was he posing any immediate threat to the SDM while still being pounded by a burly policeman? Even if he was, was the SDM justified in kicking him mercilessly? There is also the issue of jurisdiction to be sorted out. It is alleged that the Chandigarh police illegally entered the territory of Punjab, which does not fall in its jurisdiction. But the central issue is the conduct of the SDM. Is this how he is going to maintain law and order? Earlier, the stone-pelting agitators were brutally lathi-charged too. The police allegedly entered various houses and beat up even women, children and the aged. This is a graphic case of violation of human rights. The babus have sunk their heads in the sand. It is now the responsibility of UT Administrator Gen S.F. Rodrigues to ensure that the guilty are punished despite the senior positions that they hold. Breaking up an agitation cannot be an excuse for wanton behaviour. |
|
The Irish solution Finally, the oldest terrorist problem of the world has been given a decent burial. Tuesday’s signing of an agreement between the Democratic Unionist Party’s Ian Paisley and Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness, representing the warring Protestants and Catholics, is the culmination of the Northern Ireland peace process that began in 1985 and resulted in the famous Good Friday Accord of 1998. Dr Paisley, known as “Dr No” after he uttered “Never, never, never” in 1985 when Ireland got an advisory role in Northern Ireland, has agreed to lead the government that will be constituted with Mr McGuinness, till yesterday a dreaded terrorist, as his deputy. The end of the crisis that began in 1969 has been possible because of constant negotiations involving those hated for being “the men of violence”. There is a lot to learn from the success achieved in Northern Ireland. It should inspire the people involved in the talks in resolving conflicts in our own region. If peace can be made to return to Northern Ireland, it can happen in any conflict zone. This shows that New Delhi has adopted the right approach by inviting Kashmiri separatists to the negotiating table. Dialogue remains the best way of making desperate groups leave destructive paths and work along with others for establishing peace. Northern Ireland will remain a British territory till the people of that province cast their vote in favour of joining Ireland. Sinn Fein, which has disbanded its Irish Republican Army, has not abandoned its ultimate goal of self-determination. It will continue to work for achieving this objective but only through peaceful means. That is why its top leader Gerry Adams allowed his deputy to join the new government that will be formed under the agreement. Mr Adams will concentrate on the coming elections to realise his dream. This is, of course, an alarming aspect of what is being described as the best achievement of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The sectarian leaders of Northern Ireland have come together to begin a new era of peace and stability, but the communities they represent are yet to reflect reconciliation. |
|
Let justice be done, though the world perish.
— Ferdinand |
Foreign policy options THE “post-post-Cold War” era has begun. In fact, it began in early 2006, when it was clear that the United States had been checked in its tracks in one of the most vital theatres of our times, West Asia. The US debacle in Iraq, however, coincided with equally dramatic developments in Eurasia. The unprecedented resurgence of Russia, shortly after it was written off, has infused the international system with a balance of power that can only suggest that the multi-polar order has arrived. The geopolitical arbitration by Russia on the Iran issue has been the turning point. As New Delhi gradually accommodates itself to an altered geopolitical environment, the vestiges of an earlier era of foreign policy ineluctably continue to influence the strategic discourse. The discord and collaboration among the great powers over the past year can easily be misinterpreted to produce narrow policy choices. Thus, it is imperative to discern the pertinent variables in today’s global politics before adopting specific tactics. To be sure, tectonic shifts in the geoeconomic sphere over the past decade have underpinned the structural change that is visible today. At its core lies the well-documented expansion of the Asian region in general and the Chinese economy in particular, a process that entailed a massive reallocation of productive capacities in favour of these economies that in turn supply the US and the EU primarily via China. In mid-2006, China surpassed the US as the world’s second largest exporter (third largest importer). The current phase of globalisation must be contrasted with previous episodes. Unlike earlier eras, where industrial structures were vertically integrated and thus nationally concentrated, today’s system, with the exception of core strategic sectors, is characterised by horizontally integrated transnational production value-chains. This stems from technological innovations whereby physical and virtual connectivity has risen steeply. But in this “flattening” trend also lie the roots of a systemic change -- the relative ease and frequency of transfer of manufacturing industries from the US and the OECD to Asia, with China as the epicentre. Suffice it to say, such developments have significantly reduced the leverage of the US and made its economic instrument ineffective at best or self-defeating at worst, thus leaving few alternatives to multilateral solutions. Military power is, undeniably, the ultima ratio in international politics, and the aforementioned geoeconomic patterns are insufficient to make the world multipolar. The United States continues to be the largest defence spender by far and has been relentless in its drive for innovations in high-technology. Additionally, the partial autonomy of action of the US’s alliance partners — the EU through NATO and Japan through the 1952 security treaty — in military affairs ensures that it has a favourable alignment externally to complement its internal military capabilities. Indeed, the US has sought to link these disparate bilateral military alliances into an integrated security system. If this were all, the system would still be unipolar. However, the addition of Russia, a state geographically placed to influence multiple theatres, as an autonomous actor in foreign affairs has altered the relative power of the US-led alliances. The sophistication of Russia’s military-industrial complex, a legacy of over 60 years of R&D, and the fact that it is the only great power that possesses credible nuclear deterrence vis-ŕ-vis the US ensures that the current distribution of military power, albeit asymmetric, is enough to ensure that unrestrained US action is no longer possible. For such is the logic of nuclear weapons! China, though a formidable military power, has yet to indigenously develop conventional and strategic capabilities to match the US-Russia duopoly. Nonetheless, China’s military doctrine that lays emphasis on asymmetric acquisitions and strategies has ensured a balance of power in the theatre most vital to it — the Straits of Taiwan. India, it can be stated unequivocally, is facing its most propitious environment after almost 15 years of “unipolarity”. Given a range of options, hitherto unavailable, it would be unfortunate and extremely costly if New Delhi’s external conduct was unable to exploit the present diplomatic revolution. Some commentary, however, continues to be predicated on the operations of a system that no longer prevails. Such confusion partially stems from the complexities of current interactions, which if interpreted in narrow terms may indeed lead to fallacious assumptions and consequently influence the conduct of Indian foreign policy. An example may be instructive. Strategic coordination between Russia and China as it manifested itself on the Iran issue, while not an irrelevant development, led to predictions of new blocks emerging to contain the US, with the corollary that India would need to choose between the US and its allies or Russia-China. This is a false choice. While Russia and China have enunciated their desire to coordinate their actions on several issues, first expressed in their strategic partnership agreement of 2001, and have done so subsequently, they have simultaneously sought to deepen their interaction with the actors they seek to balance. This stems from the geoeconomic patterns that were alluded to earlier. To appreciate this phenomenon it is vital to distinguish today’s multipolar system with its bipolar predecessor. One of the most important variables that differentiates the current plural order with the bipolar era is that in the latter, each bloc was almost entirely self-sufficient, with minimal economic interdependence. Indeed, economic interdependence between the super-power blocs was so peripheral that it led Kenneth Waltz, the dean of contemporary realist thought, to dismiss the trend altogether. Of course, military interdependence between the US and the former Soviet Union was vital, and from that stemmed the strategic stability witnessed through the Cold War. Today, however, the erstwhile “blocs” are much more engaged at an economic and political level. This is not to suggest that geoeconomic competition has ceased and that states will pursue an international division of labour over relative national gains. For that would be suicidal. But certainly the zero-sum premise has been tempered where opportunities for mutual benefit exist. The truth is that traditional alliance-based relationships are being affected and states are adopting a relatively multi-dimensional foreign policy. Of course, states that are already integrated within US-led alliances are finding it relatively harder to chart an autonomous course, given their overwhelming military dependence on the super power—especially the EU and Japan. For India, the implications of the current patterns of interaction must be clear. Bluntly put, neither Beijing nor Washington would sacrifice their bilateral relationship over New Delhi, despite US efforts to cultivate India as a potential alliance partner, which arguably has more to do with enhancing US leverage on India rather than solely containing China. Similarly, in China-Japan relations, the bilateral economic interaction is too high for Japan to seek exclusive relations with India. Thus, exploiting the interstices in today’s balance of power requires more sophistication that in the bipolar world, where neither bloc had economic leverage on the other. The overlapping of bilateral linkages that involve all the major centres of power implies that a “friend” or a “foe” choice for India can no longer be pursued without high costs. Rather, India must adopt a multivector philosophy. Actually, a multi-dimensional principle would facilitate greater manoeuvring space within the dynamic web of international alignments, and enable New Delhi to wholly exploit the geoeconomic and geopolitical options that may become available at any given moment. One can classify such a foreign policy as “neutral”, “independent”, “autonomous” or even contemporary “non-alignment” minus its ideological baggage.
|
To my 26 daughters
I
didn’t give you birth my girls , albeit you were borne out of a massacre, a distortion of history, when humanity went insane and Indians lost their humanitarianism — The November 1984 Riots !!! The enormity of ‘84 was lost on me till fate brought me to you in December 2005, to your settlement in Tilak Vihar. It was for my book that I had come, how selfish of me ! I intended to use you like hundreds other had done before me. Day after day, the dictaphone didn’t stop, the spools kept whirring gently and sitting on a broken chair, I kept listening and absorbing, probing and questioning. And then everything stopped, my interviews had come to an end. But I couldn’t move ! Puppy, who had lost her father first, lost her mother subsequently, needed love and financial support ! Mataji despite having lost a lot, had lot of love to give. She was too old to put up stalls and sell the masalas and had a diabetic son. She needed help! Harjinder whined a lot, she wanted employment for her son! I kept away for a week, thinking the effects would be washed off! They didn’t ! I went back and called for girls of ‘84 background who desired to work. Soon the compound was swarming with them. I picked up 26 of them and they became my daughters ! I knew you and I came from different worlds, so you didn’t trust me ! We could not even connect mentally ! Belonging to the same religion, yet you disliked the word Sikhism, which had deprived you of your parents, brothers and a normal childhood ! The only way I could reach to you was through your souls, which were hurt, bruised and badly scarred. Then started the mothering! It took lot of physical force to hug you, for there was resistance in the body language. You had to be cajoled and sometimes scolded to do the daily “path” from Granth Sahib, but you learnt. You learnt slowly but you learnt! Much of my time would be spent trying to convince people and institutions as to the cause underlying purchase of masalas! The destination was very far off but your smiles were the milestones. The day I heard you singing and expounding Chaupai Sahib, my joy knew no limits. That day I was convinced that we were walking together on the right path! But we had to walk a long way. You knew absolutely no work culture, and I was determined that you learn about surviving with dignity. Slowly, steadily pushing you all, offering prizes as motivation to my growing girls, working with self-respect was instilled in you. What could a mother ask for more? Your language disturbed me and I would feign disappointment and recede into myself. You would respond by holding ears and saying sorry. The abuses gradually disappeared. Despite heat, rain and uncomfortable surroundings, there was laughter in the centre. Learning and disciplining went side by side. On your reaching late, I would impose a fine and you would sulk. I would explain then loving and disciplining were two different things. You would accept, muttering all the time under your breath. Your hugs became freer, and I started kissing you on the cheeks. You were shy and would say “bus didi bus”, but I insisted, for I realised that physical expression of love was important. Although with the hugs and kisses came lot of lice in my hair, but they could be treated. I didn’t realise that becoming a mother and then a nani of 26 grown up daughters could give me so much love and happiness. Today I am a proud mother, for my girls have learnt to stand on their own feet and they understand what working for self-respect is! They are wary of their exploiters and have created censors, so I don’t need to protect them! They know I am there when they need me for their emotional, medical, marital problems or for their kids’ educational needs! But I miss you my dear daughters, for through you I realised the purpose of my
life!!! |
Bangladesh politics as uncertain as ever UNTIL
last week, Nobel laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus was considered to be the potential future of Bangladesh politics. However, his announcement that he was ending his bid to form a new political party has injected fresh uncertainty into an already very fluid situation, and has the country asking itself once again: what next? Prof. Yunus’ withdrawal must be viewed against the backdrop of the state of emergency that was declared on January 11 when a military-backed interim government stepped in to put an end to months of violence, in advance of a one-sided general election scheduled for January 22 (the election process had been marked by serious irregularities and all opposition parties had announced their intention to boycott the polls). The caretaker government, with army backing, moved quickly against the two main political parties, the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), launching an anti-crime and anti-corruption drive that has seen reportedly up to 100,000 put behind bars, including dozens of senior political leaders. The corner-stone of the plan to break the stranglehold the two parties had over the political system was the forced exile of the two party leader and ex-prime ministers, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina. The last week of April was dominated by the caretaker government’s efforts to persuade Begum Zia to head into exile in Saudi Arabia and to persuade Sheikh Hasina not to return to the country from the US where she was visiting her son and daughter. However, the so-called “minus two” plan ran into severe criticism both inside the country and out, and has reportedly been shelved for the time being. The hope among his backers was that Prof. Yunus’ party could step into the vacuum created by the decimation of the AL and BNP. However, Prof. Yunus’ decision to drop out means that all bets are now off. A Dhaka newsweekly has reported on the intention among certain segments within the military to sponsor the formation of a military-backed “king’s party.” This is certainly one possibility. But both AL and BNP are still in business, and, following the failure of the “minus two” plan, may well continue to play a significant role. So far, reaction to Prof. Yunus’ decision has been muted. The initial response to his tentative foray into the political arena had been lukewarm (as he mentioned in his open letter announcing his withdrawal) and thus there was no great surprise or even disillusionment when he announced his withdrawal. Saushan Rahman, a university student, echoes a common refrain when she says, “He doesn’t have to be in politics to help the country.” This was also the point of view expressed by the editorial page of The Daily Star (the country’s leading English daily): “Although Prof. Yunus has departed from his political goal we believe that he has an important role to play in all aspects of the national life. We would like to see him very actively engaged in the great role of guiding the nation towards modernity and progress.” There is anxiety about what comes next. There is little support for direct or indirect army rule in the long-term, and support for elections before the end of 2008 (the time-frame set by the head of the caretaker government) is growing. For all their sins, the country has survived with the AL and BNP for the last 15 years, and between them the two parties accounted for some 80 percent of the popular vote in the 2001 general election. Public sentiment is hard to gauge due to restrictions on free expression under the state of emergency, but the two parties, especially if they are reformed and chastened, are likely to retain a fair level of support. After all, many of the worst offenders are behind bars and likely to stay there. AL is perhaps in better shape than BNP. Polls suggest that the party would have won handsomely had free and fair elections been held on January 22, and due to the fact that it has spent the past five years in opposition, the principal public ire has understandably been aimed at the BNP. In addition to this, Sheikh Hasina is at present very popular, especially after the exile saga. Her recent media blitz, including an interview on al-Jazeera with David Frost, has greatly enhanced her standing both inside the country and out. Two cases have been brought against her. The first charge of corruption appears questionable and has thus damaged the credibility of the government. The second charge, of murder (the theory being her statements incited incidents of political violence at the end of October), is more problematic, but Sheikh Hasina has been helped immeasurably by the widespread public belief that the charges against her are politically motivated. The caretaker government and the army both want to opt out of the situation. Prof. Yunus may have been part of the original exit strategy, but that plan now lies in ruins. However, now that the political parties, especially AL, are resurgent, the balance of power may be swinging back to them. There remain BNP loyalists in the army, working diligently to bring their sponsors back to power. But if public sentiment is anything to go by, the pendulum seems to be shifting in the direction of the AL.
|
|
Tony Blair’s legacy of an unwanted war IN July 2003 the U.S. Congress voted to award Prime Minister Tony Blair a Congressional Gold Medal for being “a staunch and steadfast ally of the United States of America.” Since George Washington earned the first medal in 1776, the legislature’s most prestigious award has been presented only 134 times, to figures such as Ulysses S. Grant, Winston Churchill and Mother Teresa. Nearly four years later, Blair has not picked up his prize. “He is a very busy guy,” said a spokesman at Blair’s 10 Downing Street office. But critics, and even some supporters, contend that Blair is unwilling to drape a shiny U.S. medal around his neck just now because it would be too glaring a reminder of his extremely close--and poisonously unpopular--relationship with President Bush and the Iraq war, for which his critics dismiss him as “Bush’s poodle.” While he led his Labor Party to three national election victories, resuscitated the British economy and helped bring peace to Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Sierra Leone, most analysts agree that the charismatic prime minister will be remembered mainly for his shoulder-to-shoulder stand with Bush on Iraq. “When he came in, it was ‘education, education, education,’ but his legacy is ‘Iraq, Iraq, Iraq,’ “ said Christopher Meyer, British ambassador to the United States from 1997 to 2003. Blair and Bush have always seemed an unlikely pair: a European leader from a left-of-center party with socialist roots, and a conservative Texas Republican with open skepticism of European elites. But Blair’s alliance with Bush over Iraq fits a pattern dating back a decade, according to people who have worked closely with Blair and authors who have written about him. Since he took office in May 1997, Blair has argued that military intervention in sovereign nations is justified to stop atrocities. And long before Bush was inaugurated in January 2001, Blair repeatedly identified Saddam Hussein as a serial human rights violator and threat to the world. At the same time, those who know Blair well said he believes that Britain is best served by a prime minister who keeps an airtight relationship with the U.S. president and stays “inside the tent” with him to influence policy. He established such a close relationship with President Clinton that many American observers were surprised when he hit it off so quickly with Bush, Clinton’s political opposite. But Blair was just being consistent. Those core beliefs led Blair to stand by Bush when other world leaders distanced themselves. But they also cornered Blair at times when he and Bush disagreed, especially over the need for broad international backing for military action in Iraq. Blair had been so passionate and public in his promises to stand by America and his view that Hussein needed to go, they said, that it became virtually impossible for him to change tack. Blair failed to challenge Bush on fundamental strategic questions - chiefly whether military action in Iraq was being rushed and whether there had been proper planning for the aftermath, analysts said. Blair maintains that he has no regrets about Iraq. “I think if you left Saddam there you would have a whole stack of different problems,” he said in an interview last fall with The Washington Post. “And in the end, you’d have had to have dealt with Iraq at some point.” Blair and Bush first met at Camp David in February 2001, a month after Bush took office. While Blair was nervous about meeting Bush, Riddell said he was determined to follow advice from Clinton, who told him not to “get as close to George Bush as you have to me.” Meyer, who was present for the first encounter, said: “They hit it off right away. He was in awe of Bill Clinton, but he found in George W. a blunt directness that he liked.” Blair became Bush’s chief foreign ally in the war in Afghanistan and then Iraq. He was essentially Bush’s ambassador, trying to make the case for armed intervention in Iraq to European leaders hostile to the idea. Even as Blair’s stature was growing in the United States, it was rapidly eroding at home. Furious antiwar protests throughout 2002 and 2003 culminated with more than a million people marching in central London a month before the Iraq invasion. In a speech that day, Blair said he did not “seek unpopularity as a badge of honor,” but that “sometimes it is the price of leadership and the cost of conviction.” In September 1997, Blair’s approval rating peaked at 75 percent. As he prepares to leave office it stands at 28 percent. By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post |
|
Delhi Durbar CAREER diplomats serving as ambassadors abroad may win kudos for having discharged their responsibilities admirably in strengthening ties with India, but only a minuscule few are honoured by the country where they have done duty. The outgoing Indian ambassador to Oman Ashok Kumar Attri has been conferred the pretigious Al Numan Order of First Class by the Sultan of Oman Qaboos bin Said. The Order was presented to Attri as a token of appreciation of his efforts in strengthening the bilateral relations between the two countries. The special honour was conferred by the Sultan himself when Attri called on him to bid farewell at the end of his tenure in Muscat. Presidential oath President APJ Abdul Kalam is known, at various functions and meetings, to urge people to take an oath full of values and objectives associated with the ocassion. At the prize distribution function for the Nirmal Gram Puraskar, the President called upon nearly 4,000 winners of the award from Panchayati Raj Institutions across different states, to take an eight-point oath. Apart from swearing to preserve cleanliness in their vllages and spread the message of total sanitation to neighbouring panchayats, the awardees took oath to make efforts to prevent pollution and conserve water.
Feast of films After the din in Parliament, our MPs can savour some special screenings of films in the ensuing fortnight. The Information and Broadcasting ministry will be screening several films including Parzania, a film highlighting the plight of a Parsi family caught in the communal violence in Gujarat in 2002. The film had faced threats against its public screening in the state. The Parliamentarians will also have the opportunity of seeing several other movies like Yatra in Bengali, Daivanamthil in Malayalam, Sonam in an Arunachali dialect, as well as some classics like Raj Kapoor’s Shree 420, Gautam Ghose directed Antarjali Yatra and the Tamil blockbuster Marupakkam.
BJP’s choice Realising the significance of the by-election to the Hamirpur Lok Sabha seat, which is expected to set the tempo for the assembly elections in Himachal Pradesh next year, the BJP has put up its strongest candidate for the seat. Former Chief Minister P K Dhumal, who is seen as the the party’s Chief Ministerial candidate, has been asked to contest the bypoll, necessitated due to the BJP’s previous MP having been caught in the cash-for-questions controversy. Though Dhumal was apparently reluctant to contest as the assembly polls are not far away, the party did not agree to the suggestions of putting an untested candidate in the fray. The Congress, which was keeping an eye on the BJP choice for the seat, has put up an energetic candidate who has earlier fought on the electoral battleground of Hamirpur. Contributed by S. Satyanarayanan, Prashant Sood, and R. Suryamurthy |
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
