 |
Monday,
November 12, 2001, Chandigarh, India  
|
India’s
major gains The message from Doha |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue of
Indo-Pak dialogue No, Mr
Rushdie, it is not about Islam
Human
rights and the mother of all Ordinances
1909, Physics: Guglielmo Marconi & Karl Braun
Thousands
polish off giant Indian sundae
|
India’s major gains UNDERSTATED, if not unstated, is the knitting of a close strategic relationship between India and the USA. This is the most important outcome of Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit to Washington, President Bush’s compulsion to mollify India for keeping it out of the Afghan campaign and the mutual desire to build closer and permanent ties between the two great democracies. Both leaders after the meeting in the White House talked of building a strategic framework, the details of which speak of a high level of military cooperation. A normally well-informed weekly but now out of favour with the PMO has asserted that what has been agreed to is an old-time military alliance, with the USA wanting this country to curb the growing Chinese influence and role in this region and monitor peace in the Muslim world in West Asia. The USA on its part will export duel-use technologies, cooperate in the civilian use of nuclear energy, space technology and other hi-tech areas. India will provide its air space and naval ships to escort the other’s war ships in both the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal upto the Gulf of Malacca. What is more, two senior State Department and military representatives are coming to New Delhi next month to discuss with the Indian counterparts of the Defence Policy Group. It is a thick package and will make Pakistan feel envious. There is also a hint that India will have a role in shaping the post-Taliban set-up in Afghanistan, not as a formal member of the six-plus-two arrangement but as a keenly interested neighbour. There was more cheerful news for India. President Bush borrowed two ideas from the oft-repeated stand of this country. One, supporting terrorism in questionable terms — read freedom fighters in Kashmir — is unacceptable and the countries involved will have to face the consequences. Two, fight against terrorism is not only about Afghanistan, Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda but about all kinds of terrorism. Mr Vajpayee started his speech at the UN with a strong attack on terrorism without naming Pakistan, but shifted his focus to the problems of the least developed countries and new trade relations. It was returning to the traditional Indian stand and it sounded well. There was one small hitch though. The Prime Minister avoided the lunch and dinner normally given by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, just to avoid coming face to face with General Musharraf. Officials tried to explain it away by saying that he was reacting to the unhelpful remarks of Mr Annan on the October 1 attack on the J & K Assembly building. It was carrying his reluctance to meet the General a bit too far, even if it was justified. |
|
The message from Doha ON Sunday China’s Foreign Trade Minister handed over to WTO chief Mike Moore in Doha a document from President Jiang Zemin, thus concluding China’s 15-year quest for WTO membership. In 30 days China will officially become a WTO member, threatening Indian exports of footwear, electronic and electrical goods, leather products and toys, besides capturing a still larger share of the FDI flowing to Asia’s emerging markets. Doha in the Gulf state of Qatar has many other surprises to offer. While Prime Minister
Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Bush were shaking hands in Washington and were vowing to fight global terrorism, in Doha the two sides were battling whether to have a new round of negotiations over issues like investment, competition, environment, labour and transparency in government procurement. India and Pakistan, interestingly, find themselves on the same side of the battlefield on the issue of investment. Along with a few other Asian and African countries, both seek modifications to the TRIPS agreement threatening to deprive them the benefits of cheaper medicines. On the sensitive issue of agriculture, India may not adopt a tough posture as the draft ministerial declaration takes note of the developing countries’ concerns of livelihood and food security issues. It is particularly in the services sector that India stands to benefit. If the labour market is opened up and a free movement of professionals is allowed, it would boost India’s large and globally recognised talent pool. So India may not have to plough a lonely furrow as feared earlier and Commerce and Industry Minister Murasoli Maran may not face accusations of getting India isolated and bartering away of India’s interests on agriculture. That should not leave the impression that all is well at Doha, although the extent of the bickering that characterised the pre-Seattle 1999 ministerial meeting has been avoided. The US retaliatory action against Afghanistan, the location of the venue in a Muslim country and close to the war zone and unsafe air travel have all resulted in how attendance at Doha and protests that mark such gatherings are missing. Yet the known hardlines remain intact. The Japanese are objecting to the European Union’s export subsidies on farm products. The developed countries may not lower their farm subsidies. The USA is resisting anti-dumping duties and ignoring demands for freer trade in textiles from the poor nations. The superpower offers market incentives to friendly countries and denies trade concessions to those which do not fall in line. Its recent textile bonanza to Pakistan, which has suddenly become a useful country, is all too well known. The global economy has slowed down and a failure to reach an agreement will send negative signals to an already gloomy situation. For India the real battle is at home. With China’s WTO entry, this country has no choice but to get efficient, lower production costs and raise productivity. The phasing out of the Multi-Fibre Agreement by 2005, which will end the reserved quotas for textile and garments exports, is another danger signal. |
Issue of Indo-Pak dialogue THE course the Indian leadership has adopted on General Musharraf’s repeated request for a meeting in the New York is unfortunate. Remember India’s strong reaction to the General’s coup and the assumption of the title of Chief Executive of Pakistan? India first to recognise him as Nawaz Sharif’s successor and refused to have any talks with him. General Musharraf’s persistent requests for discussion on Kashmir were repeatedly turned down. And one day Prime Minister Vajpayee gets intelligence input or information through his own track-II sources that the General is due to declare himself as President of Pakistan within the next 24 hours and he phones him addressing him as President Musharraf. The General coyly acknowledges and this amicable telephonic exchange is followed by invitation for talks. What followed was even more astonishing. President Musharraf was accorded all honours befitting the President on a State visit: the red carpet welcome, the guard of honour, a banquet by the President of India and so on. The venue was fixed at Agra where General Musharraf could recall the past glory of the bygone Mughal era and gaze at its legacy, the Taj Mahal. In between the General was to visit his ancestral home in Old Delhi for which roads were repaired and the environment freshened up along with other embellishments. The Indian media went overboard by writing something or the other every day such as Begum Musharraf’s fondness for Awadhi cuisine and the eagerness of an old retainer of Musharraf’s household awaiting the “Munna’s” arrival. Not a whiff on these lines was seen in the Pakistani press during Mr Vajpayee’s bus trip to Lahore. This was nothing compared to what the media did at Agra, but that is a different story. To revert to India’s official reaction to General Musharraf’s repeated requests for a meeting with Mr Vajpayee in New York, someone should have done some homework. Mr Vajpayee’s refusal to meet General Musharraf in New York and the explanation that if a meeting was necessary it could be done anywhere in India or Pakistan and not necessarily in the USA, was also echoed by the External Affairs Minister when Press reports mentioned that there could be a meeting between Pakistan Foreign Minister Abdus Sattar and India’s External Affairs Minister in New York even if the heads of states did not meet. This response, particularly after an effective strike by India’s armed forces across the LoC resulting in several casualties on the Pakistani side was seen as part of an unduly aggressive posture by India. Every visiting dignitary, from US Secretary of State Colin Powell to Japan’s Fujimori, had urged India and Pakistan to resume the Agra process irrespective of what was happening in Afghanistan or across the LoC. The latest to join this chorus was President Putin of Russia during Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit to Moscow. Have the pros and cons of holding talks with General Musharraf in New York been examined? At best it would have been an informal affair lasting under an hour where only courtesies could have been exchanged and hopes expressed for a more leisurely meeting for a detailed discussion either at Islamabad or anywhere else. Even President Musharraf could not expect a formal detailed discussion as was done in Agra. Indeed it would have been more or less a symbolic gesture on either side. It is plain and simple common sense, if not political wisdom, to keep saying that we will no doubt talk to Pakistan whenever it wants on any issue including Kashmir, whether in New York, Lahore, Islamabad or Delhi, but the General should also show a sense of responsibility by ending cross-border terrorism. If only some patient homework had been done by Indian decision-makers they would have realised how deeply Pakistan was in trouble. Much has been written about the rumblings in the Pakistan Army and particularly among the top Generals. Apart from the dark deeds which the displaced Generals, including the erstwhile ISI chief, would be harbouring in their minds, there are retired Generals like former ISI head Hamid Gul who go about openly demanding that President Musharraf should step down. In a recent interview General Hamid Gul said sidelining of the pro- jehadi Generals did not make President Musharraf any safer. The assessment by the US State Department and the CIA seems to be that the situation in Pakistan is so alarming that the possibility of General Musharraf’s ouster is more than probable. They would have also prepared a blueprint for General Musharraf’s succession in such an event to ensure that the Afghan war was not disrupted. Even more serious than the possible ouster of General Musharraf is the safety of the nuclear weapons in Pakistan in such situation. The USA seems to be convinced that some nuclear material and technology have already been passed on to Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden by Pakistani nuclear scientists. The detention followed by interrogation by the ISI of three Pakistani scientists was indicative of this. One of them, Sultan Bashiruddin Mehmood, is reportedly a fundamentalist with strong connections with the Taliban. The threat of nuclear terrorism is very seriously taken by the USA. Graham Allison of Harvard’s Kennedy School has written at considerable length how Soviet nuclear material and weapons were being stored without adequate security during the chaotic days which followed the disintegration of the USSR. Mr Boris Yeltsin’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Mr Alexander Lebed, had reportedly said that 40 out of 100 special KGB “suit case nuclear bombs” were not accounted for in Russia. Though Mr Lebed retracted this statement, the Americans are prepared to fear the worst and seem to be convinced that some nuclear material capable of producing a near nuclear explosion is already in possession of some ‘sleeper’ Al-Qaeda elements in the USA. This explains the US President’s video address to European leaders at Warsaw on November 6 when Mr Bush specifically said that Al-Qaeda was capable of nuclear terrorism which was not only a threat to all nations but to the modern civilisation itself. Reverting to the issue of safety of nuclear weapons in Pakistan, there are reliable reports that US and Israeli teams had already carried out certain exercises about taking possession of these weapons. There was also a report that in the event of the internal situation becoming dangerous and unstable General Musharraf himself might arrange to shift Pakistan’s “crown jewels”, as the nuclear weapons are called, to its trusted friend, China, for safe-keeping. This could be done, if at all, only with the US concurrence particularly since its presence in the shape of sizeable US armed forces, fighter aircraft and helicopters is already on Pakistani soil. The recent report that the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are on the list of designated terrorist organisations of the USA was a long overdue step on the part of the USA. The New York Times had reported on October, 29 that the USA was fully aware, at least three years ago, that Pakistan was training anti-Indian militants in Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. The USA was also aware that the ISI was closely linked with Al-Qaeda and, in turn, training Pakistani terrorists and infiltrating them regularly across the LoC in Kashmir. It is a safe assumption that terrorist activities in J&K are bound to be on the wane in the coming months, baring occasional strikes which may even be sensational. The October 1 attack at the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly premises had put General Musharraf in serious trouble and Pakistan will not, hopefully, encourage such attacks in future. In any case, the camps across the LoC and in PoK are bound to be reduced or closed down progressively in the weeks ahead. At the end of the day, which means when the Afghan war is over sooner or later, Pakistan will not remain the same as it would have undergone major changes in many areas. It may not be able to revert to any adventurist or terrorist activities targeted against India. New Delhi should realise that it stands to gain in the long run, taking into account all these factors. The writer is a former Governor of West Bengal and Sikkim. |
|
No, Mr Rushdie, it is not about Islam SALMAN Rushdie has written that the terror trauma the world is facing is about Islam. He couldn’t be further away from the truth. He appears to have missed the simmering issue of socioeconomic inequity, and how religion can be used by despots. At a time when the world needs healing along a thousand fault lines, his myopic view can only do dis-service to the promotion of understanding. Mr Rushdie suggests that Islam and terror are related, and ask: “If this isn’t about Islam, why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations in support of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida....?” He is obviously taken in by what the media is reporting, and for known and some unknown reasons, the media chooses to highlight the extremes. Mr Rushdie has chosen to ignore the widespread Muslim condemnation of the terrorist act, and a universal resolve to fight the menace. In fact, the condemnation has come from a wide swathe of Islamic nations, and shows hope. Islamic states have chosen to go along in the jehad against terrorism, and have demonstrated and understanding of socioeconomic and geo-political agendas much beyond than Mr Rushdie would have us believe. Either Mr Rushdie expects a no-opposition, with-us-or-against-us kind of support, or perhaps he is upset that the right thinking Muslims (I refuse to use the term secular Muslims) have not spoken enough. Mr Rushdie is interpreting Muslim reaction, or non-action, as he sees it, in a naive manner. We could also have asked — If Punjab terrorism was not about Khalistan, why did the Sikhs keep quiet? Babri Masjid demolition was not about Hinduism, why did Hindus keep quiet? If West Bank occupation was not about Zionism, why did the Jews keep quiet? And if the Ku Klux Klan, the Dot Busters and the Skinheads are not about Christianity, why did the USA and British citizens keep quiet? They may have kept quiet, and yet, we are clear that the vast majority of people support civilised and liberal society. And if making some secular noise in these examples can be classified as “not keeping quiet”, then we have seen more Muslims speak out against terrorism today, than Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and Christians did in their cases. Mr Rushdie needs to understand that societies have more complexity than can be explained by cause and effect theories. A recent survey in Pakistan found a dichotomy — 80 per cent of the people perceived the WTC attacks as terrorism, and bad in nature; however, they were not in favour of action and retribution as planned. Indeed, there appear to be equal dissenting voices in the western world over the methods being adopted to handle the specific job at hand, and towards related issues in general. Having said this, let us examine the issue of religion, and socio-economic issues in the areas where Mr Rushdie sees support for Osama. Let us examine the issue of religion — as a doctrine that builds bonds by imparting a commonality of precept and practice in daily lives of believers. When millions of people, wearing the same headgear, trimming their hair the same way, turn to the same direction, to utter common prayers, with common gestures — five times a day — it makes it possible to identify with those millions of fellow-believers whom one may never have seen, and become a common band of brothers. Islam is also a “new” religion. Prophet Mohammed was amongst us in very recent human history, and the Caliphate was existing till a century ago. The Muslim, never far from his religion on account of its strict code of daily namaaz, is also chronologically nearer to his religious origins. He is still inspired by the fact that the present is a near relative of that past when the Prophet actually walked the earth, and his sermons were heard amongst believers. For the average Muslim, it may be easier to become “motivated” in the defence of Allah and the Prophet. Major religions have usually specified some regimented and strictly laid down restrictions in daily conduct. These may include wearing your hair long, vegetarianism, the avoidance of certain specific meats, dress codes and even economic directions regarding interest payments. Followers of “new” religions feel aligned with the Messiah, and are motivated enough to practice the seemingly tough regime with relative ease, lending themselves easily to an apparent “fundamentalist” tag. Let us then examine commonality of economic conditions. A majority of the jehadis belong to Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan etc. These countries show similar poor socioeconomic conditions. In addition to being poor in terms of per capita income, they also have adverse ratings in child mortality, mother-child health, the condition of women, literacy, and education. They also exhibit a shocking tale of denial of political rights to the common people, and democratic institutions remain under threat. Through decades, these people have looked for support that can provide them progress. Sadly, they appear to be sidelined in the new international economic order, and forced to look at deviant ways of conducting their lives. For example, in a BBC documentary a few years ago, farmers in Afghanistan said they have little option but to cultivate poppy. They were aware of linkage to drugs, and narco-terrorism, and would readily switch over to other crops, if society at large could show them a ray of hope. Mr Rushdie, it is about this explosive mixture of a people easy to motivate, and living under appalling conditions, who are now becoming martyrs in a cause leading nowhere. Looking at the canvas from the other side of the lens, given the difficult conditions of these peoples, it is a testimony to the human desire for peace that Osama can claim only a few thousand supporters out of the millions. It is definitely a few thousand too many, but it shows that the destitute and impoverished masses have not been disillusioned as yet, and hope that their fellow humans across the globe will rise to help them live honourable lives. It demonstrates an immense sense of restraint amongst millions of practitioners of Islam. Through the bloody history of mankind, many are the times when we have seen kingdoms of inequity, and the raging of destructive feuds. At times, poetic justice has not prevailed, and we have even seen victories of oppression. For a wired, connected, inter-dependent world, the challenges this time are much greater, and they demand more than just military solutions. It needs the complete attention of international statesmen, to hammer out a long promised socio-economic equity, so that humans can live and die honourably. No, Mr Rushdie, it is not about Islam. It is about the way our world is, and the way it should be. |
Human rights and the mother
of all Ordinances AFTER
years of intellectual barrenness on the Indian political landscape — with table-thumping and cat-calls becoming the principal means of national deliberation — the furious debate that POTO or the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 2001, has spawned is the best thing that could have happened to the country. It was not, of course, the political class which kicked off the debate — the last time it did so on any issue would be a strain upon the memory — but the Fourth Estate. Three incisively analytical pieces by Assistant Editor Manoj Mitta of The Indian Express: “POTO may be harsher than TADA” (October 26), “Why defend the indefensible” (November 1) and “POTO: Why Congress isn’t shouting from the rooftops” (with B.S. Nagaraj, November 7) set the pace for a highly engaging national polemic. Accompanied by two former Chief Justices, Ranganath Mishra of the Supreme Court and Rajindar Sachar of the Delhi High Court, both published by The Indian Express on November 2, and two former DGPs, KPS Gill and Prakash Singh, writing in The Hindustan Times on November 5 and 9 respectively, the political class soon joined in, however. “Ask your lawyers, Ms Gandhi” (Arun Jaitley, IE, Nov 5), “Ordinance of terror (A.M. Singhvi, HT, Nov 6), “MOCA and POTO are as alike as apples and potatoes” (Kapil Sibal, interview, IE, Nov 9), “Overcoming POTO phobia” (Arun Shourie, HT, Nov 10), “Ask yourself, whom do you make happy by opposing POTO?” (L.K. Advani, interview, HT, Nov 11) and “POTO is a must to tackle terrorism” (I.D. Swami, The Tribune, Nov 11) — last week saw a flurry of articles and interviews from intellectuals in Government or in the Opposition, for and against the mother of all ordinances, POTO. But neither its champions nor its critics have drawn the nation’s attention as yet to Section 51 of POTO, a provision which makes a mockery of what both its champions and critics are claiming in this war of words. “Where a police officer arrests a person,” says Clause (1) of Section 51, “he shall prepare a custody memo of the person arrested.” The person arrested shall be informed, says Clause (2), of his right to consult a legal practitioner as soon as he is brought to the police station. “Whenever a person is arrested,” says Clause (3), “information of his arrest shall be immediately communicated by the police officer to a family member or in his absence to a relative of such person by telegram, telephone or by any other means and this fact shall be recorded by the police officer under the signature of the person arrested.” The person arrested, says Clause (4), “shall be permitted to meet the legal practitioner representing him during the course of interrogation of the accused person. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall entitle the legal practitioner to remain present throughout the period of interrogation.” To the best of my knowledge — Messrs Arun Jaitley and Arun Shourie can correct me if I am wrong — neither the Constitution nor the CrPC nor any other Indian law, substantive or procedural, contains a provision as “humane” as this. Whatever the Supreme Court might have said or held in 1978 in Nandini Satpathy’s case or in 1997 in D.K. Basu’s case, no Indian statute other than POTO incorporates such sweeping “human rights” safeguards for an arrested person. And it would not be in more than one in a million cases in practice that the criminal justice system in India, from police officials to judicial magistrates, would bend over backwards like Section 51 of POTO to ensure that an arrested person is not harmed or maltreated in custody and that the police are on their best behaviour during his detention and interrogation. Ask any police official or judicial magistrate in private, and he will tell you how impracticable, how terribly impracticable, a provision such as Section 51 of POTO would be in the vast majority of “ordinary” criminal cases. And how, instead of promoting deterrent police action, it would serve only to deter such action, if not put it off altogether. And yet, POTO, 2001, confers on the most dangerous criminals of the 21st century — the terrorists — “human rights” of a kind, and to an extent, ordinary criminals in India have never been given since independence. This very POTO, marking the nadir of India as a soft state, is touted by its proponents as a model deterrent, an ideal “special law” direly needed by the country today to battle terrorism in place of the rusty, hidebound “rules of evidence, o(r) procedures, o(r) methods of gathering information, o(r) methods of interrogation” that were “devised 130 years ago” for normal crimes and criminals operating in a “much simpler world” (Arun Shourie, Nov 10). And this very POTO, marking the zenith of India’s human rights achievement, is savaged by its critics on human rights grounds as a “son of Sam legislation” that will “adversely erode the right to liberty and security” of a person (A.M. Singhvi, Nov 6), an instrument of “psychological terror” (Rajinder Sachar, Nov 2) that cannot but generate “an anti-human rights culture” (Ranganath Mishra, Nov 2). For the benefit of readers who might find my views too “original” to merit acceptance, let me point out that even the Law Commission of India, which proposed a draft “Prevention of Terrorism Bill” last year, had voiced reservations regarding a provision such as Section 51. While in my opinion Section 51 is impracticable everywhere and always, given the ground realities of criminal law enforcement, the Law Commission — headed by former Supreme Court Judge B.P. Jeevan Reddy — found it impracticable or “not possible of compliance” in the case of foreign terrorists abounding in Jammu and Kashmir. The Commission was examining Section 19A of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, 1995, the precursor of POTO’s Section 51. A suggestion was put forward, says the Commission (in its 173rd Report on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, 2000) that the protection of Section 19A should be confined only to Indian citizens and should not be made available to non-citizens. The suggestion was made by a former Bombay High Court Judge and leading Supreme Court lawyer practising on the criminal side, Mr U.R. Lalit. “The suggestion is not only very attractive and appealing,” says the Law Commission, but “there is good amount of justification in Mr Lalit’s contention that the entry (of foreign terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir) in large numbers... is certainly creating a situation which is unparalleled anywhere in the world.” According to estimates, it records, there are already 5000 foreign terrorists in the state and another 15,000 to 30,000 are waiting to enter the state. The Commission’s report was submitted one and a half years ago in April, 2000. “The more disturbing factor,” says the Commission, “is that the neighbouring country, whose hostile intentions towards India are not a secret, is actively training, arming, directing and helping the foreign terrorists in all possible ways.” In such a situation, it concludes, “classifying the foreign terrorists as a distinct category from the local terrorists” and restricting the protection of Section 19A to local terrorists who are citizens of India, would be neither unreasonable nor unconstitutional. Hailed by its proponents as the ultimate weapon against terrorism, necessitated by the post-September 11 situation in Jammu and Kashmir, POTO, 2001 ignores this vital recommendation of the Law Commission. The critics of the Ordinance be damned, but will some one from the Government side care to explain why? |
|
Thousands polish off giant Indian sundae IT took 90 workers just under an hour to put together 4,500 liters of ice cream and 1,000 kg (2,200 pounds) of dry fruits and toppings to make India’s biggest sundae. And on Saturday, it took less than three hours for an eager crowd of 15,000 people in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad to polish off the three giant scoops of vanilla, rich chocolate and strawberry flavours. The dessert, called the “Sundae of India” and made by leading Indian ice cream firm Vadilal Industries Ltd, entered the “Limca Book of Records”, Vadilal official said. They said the sundae, served from a seven-metre-long (26 feet) boat-shaped container, was an “attempt to leave a lasting impression among the customers” in a city which takes its ice creams seriously. Vadilal is India’s second largest ice cream firm after Hindustan Lever Ltd <HLL.BO>. “We may give a shot at the existing entry in the Guinness Book some time in the future”, Devanshu Gandhi, Vadilal’s Managing Director, told Reuters. Afghan warlord allows women’s schools, TV Northern Afghanistan’s ethnic Uzbek warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum ended on Saturday at Taliban ban on women’s schools and television in areas he captured from the hardline Islamic movement. “Now women can continue their education”, he told the BBC, one day after his forces took the key northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the first major prize for his opposition alliance since the start of US air strikes on the Taliban on October 7. The BBC quoted the general as saying he wanted to open schools and other educational institutions for both men and women and there would no longer be “the situation that prevailed under the Taliban”, which captured the region in 1998. He said he planned to resume radio and television broadcasts.
Reuters |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
(
