Saturday, June 02, 2012

Brief observations on the Final REPORT of Group of Interlocutors for J&K ( A New Compact with the people of Jammu and Kashmir ) Daya Sagar30 May 2012

It was on 13th Oct 2010 that Ministry of Home Affairs GOI appointed a group of three Interlocutors on Jammu and Kashmir. The terms of reference of the interlocutors  were not made that clearly public.  Only thing the people could understand was that the GROUP of THREE had to feel the pulse of the people of J&K  and  communicate the  same to Government of India. How would government of India proceed on their report too was left un disclosed. But one thing was sure  that  the people who were really concerned about the affairs of J&K (  particularly the state of affairs  that people of J&K were living in for last over 20 years ) did believe that the  need for appointing the interlocutors had  resulted not out of unemployment  or  lack of development  or  socio – economic  disparities. The need had surely resulted out of the conceptions  that  the affairs of J&K State  were suffering  due to some  local conflicts pertaining to the history of accession of princely State of J&K with India, it’s relationship with India Dominion ,  and the constitutional status of J&K wrt to India. Had the need for appointment of the Interlocutors been for Development and unemployment like issues   then GOI / State Government  had many senior and professional  people in the Government  and associate institutions to look into. So, after the report was submitted by Dileep Padgaonkar , the team leader  of  ( Chairman of the 3 Member Interlocutor Committee – Dileep Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar  and M. M. Ansari)) to Union Home Minister  P. Chidambram on   12th Oct 2011 people were anxiously waiting to know about the contents  of the report and the plans of GOI as  regards the contents of the report.  With Dileep Padgaonkar  in the team  people  expected that this report would not  be like the report of  the likes of the  Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh’s  5th working Group on J&K  that did no good except pushing the people of J&K  into more  confusions.  Any how nothing much fruitful was expected from the interlocutors  report , but still inview of the reputation that atleast Dileep Padgaonkar enjoyed as a journalist  one would expect that  he would do some independent research and come out from the web of  the  information  net that has been woven over the years with the yarn produced  from the same class of campaigns  and with new Delhi  not handling the affairs seriously. But now after the contents   were available  in the media on 24th May 2011, it has been more of disappoint to many.  Going by the face of report it need not be discussed. But since such incomplete documents can otherwise be used by the trouble makers , the report is being discussed here.

Interlocutors Report  exposes the non seriousness of GOI /MOH

What was GOI doing with the report for last 7 month since it was submitted in 12th Oct  2011 ?
No doubt the opinions of individuals could be different .  Leave aside technicalities ,but in  the case a report  / opinions also reflect ignorance  or mis quotes of some very vital  facts  / technical  references  by the authors, then there are sure reasons for outright rejection rejection.

i.                    The Interlocutors’ report   refers the Pakistan Occupied areas of J&K (Kashmir) as Pakistan Administered part / Areas  of Kashmir  ( J&K ). How could GOI accept the report with such a reference is a question?

ii.                  The interlocutors report says that the People who have come to this side from Pakistan Administered Kashmir have no right to vote in elections and seek employment in J&K. This is totally wrong. POJK displaced persons   do hold the status of State Subjects of J&K / Permanent residents of J&K and hence have right to vote  for J&K Assembly , have right to  employment in J&K Services , have right to admission in state professional colleges and right to property.  This clearly demonstrates that the interlocutor team has not made any attempt to know about more realities of J&K and were / are still ignorant of the facts even after spending one complete years on the job. It appears that they were pre occupies  with concepts and did not make use of any information that was provided  to them by  local people from outside the conventional resource teams and those particularly from areas outside Kashmir Valley.

iii.                All through the report in a way refers the issues and affairs as Kashmir affairs and proposes to suggest a report for bringing peace to J&K

iv.               The interlocutors report mentions the people who were uprooted from Pakistan occupied areas of J&K in 1947 as MIGRANTS where as it vide an order of 1950 signed by Sheikh Abdullah Prime Minister  that the people uprooted / thrown away from the Pakistan Occupied Areas  of J&K  were named as  Displaced Persons and still they for all technical reference purpose are known as POK DPs . This shows the casual approach of the Interlocutors. Those families who went to Pakistan from J&K in 1947 were named as MIGRANTS by  local government under same order of 1950.

v.                 The Interlocutors report in a way goes against the  Feb 1994 Resolution of  Indian Parliament on J&K that resolves  for liberation of  Pakistan Occupied Areas of J&K . The report does not treat those areas as occupied areas  and instead names the areas as  Pakistan Administered Areas. How could ministry of P. Chidambram  over look  such acts of the Interlocutors is a question.

vi.               With this type of  understandings and levels of information that the Interlocutors  have displayed , the  inferences drawn and proposals made by them can surely not deliver any good for the people of J&K.

It appears that either GOI / MOH  was not serious  about the objective behind appointment of interlocutors  or  the Home Minister of India has  not gone through the report of the Interlocutors. Had the MOH of India read the contents of the report , the ministry would  have out rightly rejected it since it raises questions on J&K being integral part of India , what to talk of retaining the report in files for 7 months and then  making the contents  public.

2   Article 370  has not given a special status to J&K  State

Yes one thing good has come out from the  REPORT of the  Group of Interlocutors for J&K  2010. All these years even the professionals and “EXPERTS”  of J&K affairs  have been under the impression / have been cultivating that article 370 Has given  constitutionally a  special status to J&K  State. Where as  it has not been a fact. So, unfortunately for India even those sitting in the chairs of governance too did not make any effort to  un do this  wrong  explanation. The result has been that separatists and anti India elements have been able to use it as a tool to mis inform the common man. Now the Interlocutors when caught in the net of technicalities have been compelled by the conditions to say that ARTICLE 370 is not a Special Status Article as regards J&K.  And have rather proposed to amend it as Special Status article. They have also inferred that it is a temporary provisions and  be made a permanent provision after amendment.  Suggestions for calling it Special provision, for calling it permanent by amendment  and the like are opinions and  are subject to constitutional / legal/ political examination.

3. Report has  self contradictions

i.           The Dileep Padgaonkar report  (Group of Interlocutors for J&K ) at places reflects   that disturbances / political overtones  in J&K are not due to communal intentions of some . Where as at other places   the IR report sermons that  in case  the demands  for trifurcation of J&K  ( Jammu State , Kashmir State and Union Territory Ladakh )  are accepted , the muslims of 5  majority districts of Jammu region would be forced ( much against their grain) to cast their lot with Kashmir Valley  would like to go with Kashmir valley p-36.  Do the interlocutors mean that what has happened in Kashmir valley / what has been demanded by Kashmir Valley leaders  is because majority is muslim ? no it  is not simply  so.

ii.                   The IR report projects that people of Ladakh Region and Jammu region do have grievances against the government alleging that they have been discriminated by the valley dominated governments and opinion makers. But the same report simply opines  that the people do not want trifurcation .

iii.                The report simultaneously suggests   formation of three REGIONAL Councils with some legislative powers too. Who has been the guide  of the interlocutors could be question. When people want to stay together where comes the need for regional councils with some legislative powers ? p-5

4. Framing of a Constitutional Committee for review of  Laws / Acts

The Interlocutor report suggests re formation a Constitutional Committee to review all Central Act and Articles of Constitution of India extended  to J&K after signing  1952 Sheikh Nehru  Delhi Agreement  and recommending ,where ever needed ,withdrawal of the same.  The suggestion is conflicting since  does not make any reference of the D D Thakur Committee  outcome  that was constituted after Sheikh Mohd Abdullah took over as Chief Minister of J&K. The recommendations are hypothetical and need not be taken notice .

i.                    The other question could be who will select / elect the Chairman and members of Committee that has to recommend undoing the actions of elected  constituent assembly / legislative assembly / parliament of India ?

ii.                  How will the recommendations  be implemented on case to case basis  by presidential orders / under Article 370.Who will  recommend / concur  reversal ?

iii.                Report recommends amendment / modification of Article 370 where as so for all experts have been saying “ article 370 “ can neither be operated nor abrogated .

iv.               More so Article 370 id for extension , it is not for repeal

5. Status can not be so simply taken back to 1952 or so
In case inspite of all constitutional   lacunae / ills it is still accepted that  legal / constitutional position be taken back to July 1952 or 8th August 1952 then … Who will order this …President can not do on his own…..who will recommend to president … Union cabinet can simply do so …State  Government can not do so …There will be no State Assembly…There will be no J&K Constitution…
In case the present J&K Assembly is taken as Constituent Assembly / Peoples Assembly, this Assembly too can not be used since truthfulness of this Assembly  as well as all previous Assemblies is being doubted  by the interlocutors who have also recommended taking separatists into confidence.

And above all who will head  the interim J&K Government. It can not be the present Omar Abdullah lead NC ? Congress Government , It can not be Farooq Abdullah or Mufti Sayeed  ( as was got done by Delhi as regards Sheikh Abdullah) or Ghulam Nabi Azad or Mangat Ram Sharma  or  even Dr. Karan Singh  . It was the separatist pressure that forced Delhi  to appoint 5 Working Groups on J&K in 2007 and then the Interlocutors group of three. So,  IR report has been just a pass time.

6.  Making Article 370 Permanent and renaming it

The IR suggests that solution lies in making Article 370 permanent by deleting the word temporary from its description  and naming it Special Status article by amendment of Indian constitution. Report  also suggests  that after doing some work ( under 370 .1 & 370.3 )  Article 370 should not be operated. The question is in case it has to be not operated by President after some reversals are made then why to retain it as a special article permanently, what for ? , the Interlocutors are silent. Though the recommendations / views expressed are not worth taking notice hoping for a solution still  one could  ask :

i.                    Can article 370 be  so simply amended or modified by GOI ?,  Answer is no.

ii.                  Who will  recommend  / concur to the   President  ? In case we go by the  understanding of the Interlocutors   (who surely appear to be influenced / pre loaded with the  view points  of   the valley based  mainstream leaders / separatists ) this can be done by the Constituent Assembly of J&K and  if we go by the opinion of experts on “ J&K” there is no  assembly worth  the name of Constituent Assembly of J&K at present . Should a new Constituent Assembly be elected?

iii.                More over doing so is as good as abrogation of Article 370  even if its contents  are to be changed naming it is special provision / Status  Article . It will be as good as adding a new Article in Constitution of India by the Parliament and no any government can simply do it on its own.

iv.               Or in case it is  only named as special status article  and word temporary is to be deleted  but it has not to be operated  in future , then what is the purpose of retaining it . So the suggestions are un thoughtful.

7. Is not the Instrument of accession eroded by August 1952 Delhi Agreement ?

In case the indirect  inference drawn  by  Interlocutors is accepted that majority in J&K feel that article 370 has been eroded , then it could also be  said that  there has been undue sure erosion of the terms and contents of the Instrument of accession  (as was signed by Hari Singh ) through the signing of the 1952 Delhi Agreement   by two persons and acceptance of the same by Parliament of India .
i.         Nehru  Sheikh Delhi agreement  was done outside the instrument of accession and Maharaja Hari  Singh was not party to it.

ii.      The Dehli Agreement was first presented in parliament and thereafter it was presented in the J&K Constituent Assembly of J&K. , So, Sheikh Abdulla had signed an agreement with Nehru without the approval of the JK Constituent Assembly and there was no reference of the  Regent Karan Singh in that.

iii.    Even Sheikh’s cabinet had accused Sheikh Abdulla in august 1953 that Sheikh was not serious about the Delhi Accord, rather he intended to violate even this  “ agreement”.

So, it is quite evident that the interlocutors have  failed to study the J&K affairs with open mind  and appear to have  worked with mindset that was  totally carried with the choice and views of those who  have been working to keep J&K affairs disturbed in the name of Kashmir affairs.` Rather they had  pre set  concept / information base.

8.Report is not  drafted  with a sincere and free mind approach ?

The manner in which the Dileep Padgaonkar committee report  proceeds  it appears that they have not tried to even know the basic of the ex Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir.

i.                    They have called Pakistan Occupied areas of  J&K  as Pakistan Administered   parts of Kashmir / Jammu and Kashmir

ii.                  They have called Pakistan Occupied Area  displaced persons as Migrants  where as  per an order  of 1950 signed by  Sheikh Abdullah , the then Prime Minister of J&K , they were named as Displaced Persons.

iii.                 So strangely Dileep Padgaonkar report says that POK DPs (“Migrants”) do not have any rights as State Subjects of J&K  i.e they can not vote for J&K Assembly, they can not get J&K Government  Jobs, they can not get admission in J&K Government Professional Colleges . This conclusion is totally wrong. It is so surprising that the Interlocutor Committee that claims having toured J&K for one year, met  more than 700 delegations  has not been able to even understand the status of people  living in J&K.

iv.               Though they have  understood during their tours from Oct 2010 to September 2011 to different areas of J&K that  J&K State has vast geographical and socio political dimensions , still they have not been sincere to accept  the truths like  : that  Kashmir Valley is a small part of J&K State &  any voice  ( worth   attracting attention of outsiders) against local government /GOI as well as any separatist voice  against India Nation ( where ever it has been ) has primarily come only from the Kashmir valley ( Kashmir Region ) and no other areas over last 60 years .

v.                 Interlocutors appear to have not made  worth attempt to look at J&K  for fact finding  and appear to have worked under Kashmir Valley “phobia”. Had it not been so they would  have known through the informations locally available that even Muzaffarabad   ( no doubt Ladakh too) was part of the State of Maharaja Gulab Singh  before the British ceded  the Areas of Kashmir Valley to Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. So the report is no more than a hush up exercise and MOH too has thrown it in the open  without any workable note.

vi.        Interlocutors recommend that for solution, we must keep in mind strategic importance of J & K as regards  central Asia and South Asia.  They have  failed to learn that no part/ boundary of Kashmir Valley ( that was ceded to Gulab Singh by the British)  is bordering Afaganistan,  China, Russia,  and even Pakistan. When Sheikh Abdullah gave Quit Kashmir call in 1946 it indirectly referred to the 1946 Amritsar Treaty between the  British & the Maharaja Gulab Singh. As regards the trade links with Central Asia / South Asia , the link is through Indian Borders  and a local Indian Sate can not claim independent identity on such account. Similarly what is the problem  for conducting trade with the other world across Indian  borders  and such international trade is Central Subject and not State  subject. What Interlocutors  team  has tried to examine and propose  and in what context it is , is not understandable. If they mean J&K  ( Kashmir valley )  should be made a “State” out side India , then they should have  dared to openly say so and discussed the Self Rule Document of PDP (  PDP itself says  that it DOC does not suggest immediate and total solution)  in detail in the report .

9. Report reflects no different a mindset

No doubt over last more than six decades the approach of GOI and prime political parties of India has been such that it were only the leaders, view points  and questions that emerged from Kashmir valley ( just 10 % of the total area of J&K State )  were taken notice  and attended to. Going by the experience with earlier committees and commissions  nothing much different was expected from the  Group of Interlocutors. I was of the opinion that the end outcome would not be any more than the contents of the Report of  Man Mohan Singh’s 5th Working Group ( 2007 -2010) that was headed by a Retired Judge of Supreme court of India  but gave  a very incomplete report as regards its particular terms of reference ( center state relations) . Nothing fruitful came out of the  Saghir Ahmed Report  except that it gave some material to NC / PDP to advocate that the report went in their  Autonomy / Self Rule way but GOI did not implement. More confusions for innocent people of J&K and more tools for the separatist to  target India at the international level were hence provided. And the result would be no different in this case also. More confusions and more  impractical suggestions and inferences have come from team Dileep Padgaonkar. Going by the face of report I would not have discussed this report  but since such incomplete documents can otherwise be used by the trouble makers , the report is being discussed here.

Justice Saghir Ahmed who was a retired  supreme court judge had failed to examine and discuss the technicalities / constitutional aspects of J&K Assembly Autonomy Resolution  June 2000/ Greater Autonomy/ PDP Self Rule ( although PDP had loaded Self Rule Document on its website also in 2008 ). It appeared from the report that Justice Saghir ahmed not even read the Self Rule document that was also available on the net. As a Judge he was the best person to see the constitutional aspects of Autonomy Resolution 2000 and PDP Self Rule. He did not do so . GOI India should have asked  that  why the Justice did not do his job. But GOI did not even comment on that report , what to talk of rejecting the report and treating the exercise as  wastage of time and money 
.  No doubt this  did give an opportunity to NC/ PDP to say that GOI has not gone with the recommendations of 5th WG.  Confusions in the local minds grew, more wrong signals were sent to outside world as well. The summary  contents of the interlocutors report too are no different. The difference is that they have discussed the Self Rule features indirectly in some more detail  without caring that such suggestions did not fall with in the  purview of J&K being a State of Union of India .

Similarly Interlocutors report has been left  without  any comments for 7  months ( Oct 2011 to May 2012) by GOI inspite of it having so much of lacunae, incompleteness and wrong quotes and references that question  that question Indian intentions and rights as regards Indian State of J&K. Interlocutors report has  worked on the similar lines and talked on some sensitive issues that have more relevance from international point of view for India . But the discussions and suggestions have been made by Interlocutors  hypothetically and beyond constitutional dimensions .

It is quite evident from the report that the even team Dileep Padgaonkar has been carried with the one sided  viewpoints and demands cultivated  by the Kashmir Valley centric mainstream political leaderships and the anti India / separatist elements ( no doubt  improper & no timely  response from GOI over the years  as well looking J&K affairs as only Kashmir valley affairs has allowed  cultivation of wrong concepts  even in the minds of many Indian journalists, writers, opinion makers , political leaders, social and human right activists ). No doubt it was a unique experience for them to interact with J&K people outside Kashmir Valley and surely 12 month period was too less for them to do effective learning / understanding and come out of the information  about J&K affairs that they had so far believed in.

It was not only in pre 1947 days that  some Valley based leaders were carried by Congress and the British  as the only representative voice and sample of the people of J&K State and the Kashmir Valley  issues  ( 10 % area of J&K ) have been treated as the representative of J&K . affairs on communal lines. Even after 1947 accession the Delhi Leaders and  and the people of other Indian States  too have all these years got carried with the same Kashmir Valley Centric understanding. Pakistan has hence taken undue advantage of this  projecting J&K as a communal issue ( religion based ).

It was not only Jawaharlal Nehru  but also many other Indian leaders  from political parties other than Congress who carried on with such approach. Even BJP has been no  different to some extent. To India’s fair disadvantage many  social, religious, HR, academic study groups and Commissions  too have been  no different.  Some experts have even alleged that when any one visits J&K  for study on affairs , he / she is extended  pleasant hospitality by the Valley leaders  as well as the governments dominated by Valley centric  leaders / groups , and the visitor gets lost in the cob web of Valley Centric vision “ documents” / demands / inferences / historical notes  inspite of the fact that Kashmir Valley forms no more than 10% part of whole of J&K and Jammu Region is 170 % as large as Kashmir valley, what to talk of Ladakh region (  that includes large area of Gilgit Baltistan in Pakistan Occupied J&K as well as area of Ladakh region transgressed  by CHINA ). But no one has so far that pointedly referred to  the needs  ( outstanding since 1947 ) of the Pakistan Occupied areas of J&K  & the people from / of those  areas except Kashmir valley. Only passing references are made to the people outside Kashmir valley and this report is no different.

The Kashmir valley has also unduly influenced the wisdom of the Team Interlocutor  ( headed by  a renowned journalist in Dileep Padgaonkar ). It could be said with regrets that the interlocutors  inspite of spending enough time in J&K have not been able to make any effort to know  or do any extra effort  to know / see J&K outside the  arena so far known to them  and the pictures painted so far. The interlocutors appear to have been caught in the controversies and complications of J&K affairs . they have projected and inferred differently at different places for similar / same issues.

Without particularly naming the Self Rule DOCUMENT of PDP   the report  has touched some contents of PDP SR Doc and suggested that after the policies are approved at the India level then  for implementation of some issues the matter need be deliberated with Pakistan and Pakistan “ administered” Kashmir  government. What hesitation the interlocutors had in straightway referring to Self Rule  Doc of PDP need be asked. May they wanted to retain the good will of Kashmir valley as well as people of other Indian states by not discussing the affairs openly.

It could be inferred , even alleged  by some , that the interlocutors  are not at all concerned  about the welfare of the people of J&K , they were / are under the valley centric information bank and they wanted to lose the good will of no one , even the separatists ( who did not accept them as interlocutors worth the prevailing conditions and requirements of J&K affairs).

The interlocutors were not aware of even the basic points  J&K like  Pakistan Occupied areas of  J&K ( they call Pakistan Administered areas of J&K ), nomenclature used for people uprooted in 1947 from J&K areas  ( they wrongly call  Displaced persons as Migrants ),  their  wrongly saying that POK displaced persons do not have Voting right for JK Assembly elections as well as have no right to property in J&K. So, how could such people be considered worth making a view / suggestions on J&K affairs?

It is so surprising that inspite of all these lacunae / wrongs   and unfair references / suggestions   GOI / Ministry of Home Affairs GOI  was and is still carrying the interlocutors report to their CHEST.

YES   three truthful facts  so far mis represented , mis quoted do indirectly emerge from the Interlocutor’s report Oct 2011.

i.                    J&K does not have a special status as per Constitution of India

ii.                  Article 370 is not a Special status Article

iii.                There is vide disparity  in opinions / aspirations /demands  of the people of J&K. The people of Jammu Region and Ladakh region   allege that they have been unfairly / discriminately treated in comparison to  Kashmir valley. It is here that Interlocutors report indirectly accepts that J&K affairs are not just Kashmir Valley affairs and there are other much  larger areas / people in J&K.

iv.                Some more revealing facts would have been known to them  had they spent some more time with the people other than those from Kashmir valley shedding ( for the time ) the concepts they had carried so far.
The report shall not be implemented , rather it can not implemented . Rather report has created more of confusions /doubts  and the GOI / MOH should not have put the  report  in the  media.    Going by the face of report I would not have discussed this report  but since such incomplete documents can otherwise be used by the trouble makers , the report is being discussed here.

 10. May not the report does some damage than doing some good

As regards the people of J&K / GOI is concerned making the report  as drafted and the manner in which it has been made public would  socially do some harm and not good.

No action would be taken by Government of India on the vital issues concerning J&K turmoil and as contained in this report ( leave aside local unemployment , disparity , development , displaced persons , migrants, refugees ) since the issues that really concern and need be answered / attended to on time surely pertain to separatists ideologies  and  such like ancillary viewpoints that could be used for vote bank politics.

Since  there have been some references of the Nehru Sheikh 1952 Delhi Agreement   (of the time when J&K Constituent Assembly was already on its job   and any such agreement  would be a dictation to Constituent Assembly  ) and the PDP Self Rule Doc /  indirect  reference of its contents , the interlocutor report would surely provide some pointers to NC and PDP  to tell people that GOI is not implementing their demands. They may get some political advantage. But in the long run National Conference will be a loser in the process. Since so far NC has not directly or indirectly questioned the truthfulness of the 26th/27th  Oct  1947 Accession J&K with India and always named Pakistan as aggressor country  where as this report  suggests  some  actions to be taken that do not fit in the  spirit of !947 accession of J&K. So, the report if not disposed off / rejected by MOH and if kept in the shelf , would provide some  links to   separatists elements / those who question accession  thereby  making it  more difficult for NC  to fight the separatist ideologies  in Kashmir valley at the local political level maintaining its stand on the trueness of 1947 Accession and forcefully pursue the nationalistic  view points.

11. The report reflects personal mindsets of the team members

The report appears  to have nothing more  than the set mindset of 3 interlocutors who have rushed through completing their assignment   as was done  by Justice Saghir Ahmed  while drafting the report of 5th Working Group of the Prime Minister.

The Team claims having met 700 delegations and a few thousand people of 22 districts of J&K. But they have not quoted  the names of the persons and the suggestions made by people outside Kashmir Valley except making some reference of Sh. Balraj Puri and  Jatinder Bakshi whom they had met on their first visit first day itself. They do make reference of S. Teja Singh Ji who was  Secretary of the Autonomy Committee ( and he had to be referred). No separatists leader met them in Kashmir valley  but they still recommend to GOI to engage them in dialogue. Incase GOI has to engage them in dialogue , what can GOI do effectively on this report , is a question. They do say that the report is suggesting with in constitution of India but do  suggest some actions for taking that surely not fall with Constitution of Inda.

They have tried to include the names of some organizations and people from outside Kashmir valley  in their report but making no pointed reference to the informations and demands made by these groups / people. Do the interlocutors mean that people from outside Kashmir Valley had no worth information / suggestion to make as regards the J&K affairs from  national and international point of view ?  If they want to reflect so , it is surely wrong. Report has nothing as material subject to suggest to GOI other than what the Kashmir Valley leaders  or the Separatists  like ideologues agitate.  The interlocutors have used the names of persons / organizations from outside Kashmir valley just to give a face value to their  half done venture in J&K.

Since such incomplete documents can otherwise be used by the trouble makers , the report has been discussed here.

No comments:

Post a Comment