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