 |
Friday,
November 16, 2001, Chandigarh, India  
|
Doha resurrects WTO Criminal
medical apathy |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
USA on a triangular
tightrope
“Word” and the
“Bureaucrat”
Crucial moment in
Afghan history Beware,
‘Reformist Taliban’ will continue to export terrorism to India
1912 PHYSICS: Nils Dalen
|
Doha resurrects WTO SEATTLE, the venue of last WTO ministerial conference, was a disaster. Doha, in Qatar and the host of this month’s meet, is a partial success. There is an agreement on most issues but hemmed in by restrictive clauses. Obviously no one wanted a repeat of Seattle and no one wanted the Doha declaration to be a milestone either. So the interests of all groups were mentioned in the final statement and accompanying documents favourably or semi-favourably but in exquisitively vague terms. A new term has been minted to close the differences among the developed (rich) bloc, the developing and the least developed nations. It is explicit consensus which means that unless a country is in full agreement with the proposed WTO stand, it can opt out of discussions. This has helped save the Doha meet but how this will operate is problematic. Suppose India abstains from shaping environmental or competition issues, can it be free from enforcing the subsequent WTO rules? Two other innovations are a political statement on TRIPs (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) and a general declaration by Conference Chairman Yousouf Kamal, Qatari Finance Minister, assuring the dissenters that their concerns would not be brushed aside. Thus, the Doha declaration is not a road map but a hazy sketch of future trade as everyone wants it. And global trade needs a boost since it has slipped from a robust growth of more than 20 per cent in 2000 to about 1 per cent so far this year. India has reasons to smile. It has banished the issue of labour standards from the WTO agenda, perhaps forever. It has virtually rewritten the rules on agricultural imports by permitting every country to bypass WTO regulations in the interest of food security, livelihood and rural development. Punjab and Haryana farmers can breathe easy even if the FCI is acting in a hostile fashion. The TRIPs restrictions on drugs has been relaxed and in an emergency medicines will be available at affordable prices. The important thing is that individual countries will decide what constitutes an emergency and when to skirt patent laws. This new provision is aimed at helping AIDS patents in Africa but has global application. True, India failed to open up the textile export sector and redefine the dumping laws which the USA frequently invokes to stop imports from Third World countries. But these will be tackled in future. What is heartening for the present is the leadership role India played at Doha; it was back to the seventies when this country led the developing segment. |
|
Criminal medical apathy LAST week 12 infants lost their lives at King George Medical College, Lucknow, because of medical neglect. Reports said the infants died for want of oxygen Early this week over 10,000 children were taken ill in Assam after being administered plus vitamin A drops. One child died and the condition of two others was reported to be
critical. The same day a report from Washington said that the famous Johns Hopkins University had tested a cancer drug on human subjects in India. The common point of concern in the three incidents is the scale of human indifference to public health in the country. If the Indian authorities themselves show scant respect for human lives, what is there to stop foreign researchers from using
Indian patients as guinea pigs for trying out the effect of new drugs? Several deaths were reported during the now famous polio drive from some parts of the country. What should make the average Indian seethe with rage is the refusal of the authorities concerned to accept blame and resign. In the KGMC case the PMO ordered an enquiry. Since Lucknow happens to be the Prime Minister's constituency it made political sense to deny the lack of oxygen as the cause of death of the infants. The report said they died of "other complications". It is a different matter that the leakage in the jet of the plant supplying oxygen to the ICU of the neo-natal wing of the KGMC was not explained satisfactorily by the investigating officers. The Assam incident could have assumed the dimensions of a much graver tragedy. Already attempts are being made to pass the buck. The Union Health Minister has been quoted as having said that the Assam government ignored the Central directive of not giving vitamin A drops to children until further orders. The Assam Health Minister has ordered the seizure of the remaining stocks of vitamin A concentrate supplied to the state through UNICEF. An enquiry as usual has been ordered to find out the cause for the side effects the administration of the drops caused among such a large number of children. The UNICEF spokesperson in Delhi said that the expiry date of the drops was somewhere in 2003. So what went wrong? According to one account, it could be a case of over-dose that caused the life-threatening reaction among the children. The administration of the drops was recommended by UNICEF and WHO for bringing down the incidence of birth-related blindness in the country. And what action would the Indian authorities take against Johns Hopkins University for carrying out trial testing of drugs on human subjects in India without authorisation? The drug that was administered to a number of cancer patients in Kerala was not even tried out on animals, as is the usual medical norm. The answer is obvious. If those responsible for the world's worst industrial disaster that visited Bhopal nearly 20 years ago have not been punished yet, those involved in the illegal trial of cancer drug on patients in Kerala too are likely to escape punishment. |
USA on a triangular tightrope EVEN
by the hectic post-September 11 standards diplomatic activity over the last week has been particularly hot-footed what with both Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf engaged in summit-level parleys with President George Bush on American soil. All three of them also addressed on a single day the UN General Assembly that has belatedly begun its annual session. But the key question is: what do all the private talks, public speeches and behind-the-scene wheeling and dealing add up to? One short answer is that the intense activity, reflective of the traditional rivalry between India and Pakistan, really turned out to be a revealing essay in triangular tightrope walking by the USA with just a slight but manifest tilt towards Pakistan. This needs to be both explained and put into perspective. To begin from the beginning, during US Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s visit to the subcontinent, the USA extended an invitation to Mr Vajpayee to pay a working official visit to Washington before going to the UN General Assembly in New York. There was some satisfaction in New Delhi that no such courtesy was shown to General Musharraf. Within a few days, however, Mr Bush invited the Pakistani military ruler to a dinner meeting in New York on the opening day of the General Assembly session. The US President is always present for the inaugural sitting of the UNGA but he seldom engages himself in bilateral meetings with foreign Heads of State or Government on this occasion. This gesture made to General Musharraf was thus truly rare. The reasons for this are not far to seek. Given America’s almost total preoccupation with the war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan, its need for Pakistan’s comprehensive cooperation, not just military bases, is acute. Since General Musharraf was ready to do whatever the USA wanted him to, Pakistan has become once again the “frontline ally” of America and the General its favoured leader. Witness, the personal praise Mr Bush lavished on Pakistan’s self-appointed President. To say this is not to suggest that the USA is unaware of Pakistan’s role in creating and nurturing the Taliban on the one hand and in sponsoring and supporting terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir on the other. Simply, it no longer suits the Americans to talk about this even though privately they may be pressing General Musharraf to rein in the jehadis at home and not to offer any provocation in Kashmir. This clearly is not satisfactory to India, especially after all the talk in recent years of America’s determination to have a qualitatively different, indeed special, relationship with India. New Delhi is also peeved, understandably, because while proclaiming its resolve to combat all terrorism wherever it exists, the USA promises to tackle cross-border terrorism in Kashmir only during a distant “second phase” of the global assault on the scourge. No wonder then that the USA also feels the need to mollify India and assure it that the establishment of a long-term and close relationship was an important and integral part of American foreign policy. The standard American line is that the present relationship with Pakistan is “tactical” while that with India is “strategic”. This apparently was Mr Bush’s theme song also during the 30-minute, one-to-one meeting with Mr Vajpayee in the Oval Office. The joint statement issued after the meeting also spoke of “military and nuclear (safety related) cooperation” between the two countries and of the initiation of a “strategic framework” dialogue. By contrast the joint Bush-Musharraf statement contained not abstract promises but solid and immediate gains for Pakistan, including a billion-dollar bonanza. On the General’s pressing demand for arms, especially the release of the F-16 warplanes the sale of which was frozen a decade ago, the statement is silent. But this does not mean that the demand has been rejected. The clincher, however, is the reaffirmation, in the joint statement with Pakistan, of the US policy on Kashmir that Washington would “encourage” India and Pakistan to resolve the issue through bilateral negotiations and “in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people”. For all its condemnation of October 1 outrage at the state assembly in Srinagar, the USA conspicuously refrains from using the expression cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, thus shutting its mouth, if not its eyes, to a stark reality. General Musharraf received greater media and public attention in the USA than Mr Vajpayee did and was his fluent and confident self during his visit. In any case, since the days of Ayub Khan, the “Sandhurst swagger-stick syndrome” has impressed the Americans. However, the Pakistani President erred when he stretched the point and claimed that America had agreed to “mediate” in the Kashmir dispute and endorsed the UN resolutions. Mr Powell had to correct him. Even so, the US Secretary of State did insist that the problem had to be resolved in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people and through India-Pakistan negotiations that the USA would be happy to “facilitate”. Let the meaning of this not be obscured by the evidently sincere American desire to improve its relations and strengthen its ties with India. Whether, after dealing with Osama and Al-Qaeda, the USA would force General Musharraf to crush terrorist groups operating in Pakistan and wind of the madarsas that churn out thousands of jehadis every year remains to be seen. But it stands to reason that America would insist on this in sheer self-interest. Two other significant facts merit close attention. First, nearly a week before Mr Vajpayee’s arrival in Washington, the US Attorney-General went public on his view that the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, two of the more notorious terrorist outfits in Pakistan, be declared “foreign terrorist organisations” under the US laws. But so far the State Department headed by Mr Powell has not done so. The White House has not overruled it. Why? Obviously because the USA does not want to “push” General Musharraf beyond a point. Secondly, on both the composition of the post-Taliban dispensation and the unsuccessful attempt to prevent the Northern Alliance from occupying Kabul before the formation of a broad-based interim government the USA has been accommodative of Pakistan’s demands. On the ground, however, the advance of the Northern Alliance forces has been truly spectacular. Meanwhile, the efforts at the UN General Assembly to cobble an interim dispensation with King Zahir Shah as its titular head are brisk but in a state of uncertainty. As for India’s say in the formation of the interim set-up in Kabul the position seems to be that while the USA would consult India and welcome its participation in the stupendous task of relief to and rehabilitation of Afghanistan, Pakistan is evidently in a position to veto India’s inclusion in the group of “Six plus Two” that is the UN’s instrument to handle Afghanistan’s future. How should this country react to this broad and rather tangled state of affairs? The kind of whining and sulking that has been in evidence for some time is wholly out of place and must be abandoned at once. It simply does not behove a big and proud country that has all the potential to be a global power and the world’s second largest economy. From this standpoint Mr Vajpayee must be congratulated on his decision not to mention Pakistan in his conversation with Mr Bush and leave it to the US President to do the explaining. The Prime Minister also refrained from referring to Pakistan or Kashmir in his speech to the UN though he delivered his firm message during his two speeches to adoring NRIs. India would continue to do all that needs to be done in Kashmir. It must also hammer home its concerns and views, primarily through diplomacy. All that can be done to improve relations with the USA is also imperative. But this ought to be done with greater poise and dignity that has been the case so far. The “Frankly Speaking” column by Mr Hari Jaisingh will appear tomorrow. |
“Word” and the “Bureaucrat” BUREAUCRATS
have long been derided as literary Philistines who are barely able to string two words together, or condemned as windbags with a special form of oral flatulence where words are emitted in
thunderous fashion without any accompanying substance. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the beginning was the “Word” and then came the Bureaucrat to give meaning and life to the Word. He did so by creating an art form which differs from other arts and languages in that where the latter seek to convey, the language of bureaucracy seeks to conceal! And, given the sheer dimensions of governmental goof-ups and gerrymandering, concealing them behind a few words requires far more skill than merely revealing to us that our sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest thought. Bureaucracy serves a special purpose (though, like God’s purposes, it is usually quite difficult to fathom what they are), and its language suits that purpose eminently well. Governmental files are the repositories of some of the best specimens of this special language, and amply demonstrate the dexterity which generations of file-pushers have endowed on it, and the mastery which they have acquired over the “suggestio falsi” and the “suppressio veri”, as it were. Take for instance, the case of the Minister who, having negotiated the required benefaction from a contractor, had his proposal put up on the file and wrote below it “Approved”. The contractor, falsely secure in the belief that the contract was his, failed to pay up. The Minister summoned the file and simply added the word “Not” before the word “Approved”. The contractor, acknowledging defeat at the hands of a master, prostrated himself with his bags before the icon of democracy and begged for his contract back, wondering at the same time how the worthy could change the orders on the file. The Minister, wise in the ways of governance, took out the file and just added the letter ‘e’ to the word “Not”. The final order thus read: “Note Approved”-two simple words that concealed twists worthy of a Saki or an O’ Henry! On another file a powerful Principal Secretary to a Chief Minister, whose wife wished to delegate her culinary responsibilities to a cook, moved the Finance Department (F.D.) for the creation of a Class D post. The file reached the Joint Secretary (J.S.) in the F.D. Now the J.S., compared to the Secretary to Chief Minister, occupies a slot in the bureaucratic food chain comparable to the position occupied by the plankton in relation to the sperm whale. In the normal course the post should have been sanctioned without a whimper. In this case, however, this humble organism refused to accept his station in life and returned the file after rejecting it. A livid Secy. to C.M. who was only used to worms crouching before him and not turning, returned the file with the noting: “Has this file been seen by the Finance Secretary? If not, it may be put up to him.” (Finance Secretaries are generally considered more amenable than their underlings). The J.S. sat on the file for a couple of days to show application of mind, and then returned it after recording: “F.D. regrets to reiterate its rejection of the proposal.” An epileptic Secy. to C.M. decided to teach this callow fledgling a lesson. Confident that he now had this streptococcus cornered, he put the ball (and the file) back in the Finance Department’s court with a thunderous ace: “At what level has this decision been taken?” Unfazed, however, the J.S. replied with a classic cross-court of his own: “Secy to C.M. is informed that the decision has been taken at the appropriate level.” The sperm whale retired shortly thereafter, sans cook. Another story which comes to mind concerns an officer who wanted a garage built in his official house, to park his two (official and private) cars. He accordingly sent to note to the Secretary (P.W.D.) requesting that “the garrage be constructed immediately.” While approving the request, the Secretary PWD recorded: Incidentally, the officer may be advised that while the garage may contain two cars it can never contain two ‘R’s’!” And finally, my own favourite is the case of the young officer whose senior recorded in his Annual Confidential Report- “An officer who should go far.” When the A.C.R. reached the Secretary of the Department, the latter added his own comments: “I agree. The officer should go far-in fact, the farther he goes the better!” |
Crucial moment in Afghan history NORTHERN Alliance forces have entered Kabul despite an advice from the Americans to stay put in the peripheries of the capital city. With this, Afghan situation has entered a new phase. The question is who will form the government? First, will the Northern Alliance’s control decisively perpetuate? The withdrawing Taliban are reported to have taken to the surrounding hills; this does not help stabilise civil administration and peace. Afghanistan is called an ocean of uncertainties. Can one or more groups build a peaceful future? Afghanistan’s troubled past is rightly called the product of colliding empires. Prominent among these were the British, Russian, Persian and the Chinese. There are many surrounding countries that have vital interests in Afghanistan. Their interference cannot be avoided. Britain and the USA say, their goal is to establish a popular coalition government in Kabul that would guarantee peace. This may be a pious wish. Afghans are fiercely independent people. They are divided into tribes, which are divided by religion, which are divided by customs. The forces that ejected the Soviets after bloody fighting, split into factions and turned the guns supplied by the Americans on those with whom they had fought shoulder to shoulder. When loyalties are divided, is it possible for the tribes to be cohesive while empowered with authority? Idealists may say that the ethnic divide is an imposed phenomenon in order to support their argument in favour of a representative coalition. The reality is that each ethnic group has grossly violated the human rights of others when opportunity came its way. In the first defeat suffered by the Taliban in Mazar-e-Sharif, the Tajik and Uzbek ethnic groups dealt with the Pushtuns with barbarity. But when the Taliban recaptured Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif and drove away Dostum, more than seven or eight thousand Shi’ites were massacred in cold blood. Atrocities perpetrated on common Afghans under the Taliban ruthless rule bred hatred against them. The Northern Alliance, too, cannot produce a clean slate on its side. Northern Alliance does not seem to be tactically in a position to give a stable government that would guarantee peace in Afghanistan. If the Pushtun group is to be replaced by the Tajik group or Tajik-Uzbek combine, this will not guarantee stability to Afghanistan. Persons matter less in Afghan political structure. The land had been world of secret agents, bribes and treacheries. How the fall of Mazar and Kabul came about within a week’s time is not that simplistic as affair. Rabbani or Gilani or Anwari can at best enjoy relative importance. The USA and Britain have been encouraging contacts with 86-year-old deposed King Zahir Shah who has spent thirty years in exile. He has the advantage of age plus no ambition status. He could be a cementing force while the Loya Jirga could take a major decision. Although the representatives of Northern Alliance have met with his deputies in Rome and elsewhere, the Taliban reject him outright. Though he is Pushtun and that could be a plus point, the fact is that younger generation of Afghans up to the age of thirty, know him not and are not bound by the standard of respect he deserves. What then should be the solution of Afghan imbroglio? The UN is all right as an impartial agency if it takes Afghanistan as its protectorate. But the problem is that the common Afghans are well armed. A protectorate will need a foreign and impartial army to maintain peace. Will the Afghans and their warlords accept foreign troops on their land? Perhaps not. The USA should know that Afghanistan is not a state and has no government. It has been a conglomerate of warlords. The USA cannot alleviate the nervousness of General Musharraf for the fate that has befallen the Taliban and in which he has also been instrumental. Pakistan’s concept of strategic depth and backyard space seems to be collapsing. In the final analysis, there appears the danger of Afghanistan getting divided into two or three on ethnic count. At the same time, perhaps this could also become a catalyst for the revival of Pukhtun movement. The defiant mood of the Pukhtun refugees in Peshawar and Quetta should be an eye opener for the rulers in Islamabad. |
Beware, ‘Reformist Taliban’ will continue to export terrorism to India THE Afghan military campaign is reaching a point of decision or what Clausewitz called the culminating point. To him, success came from strength — both physical and moral. The centre of gravity is the capital, says Clausewitz, and today Kabul, after Mazar-e-Sharif, is the hub of power and movement. Clausewitz emphasised that if the enemy is thrown off balance, he must not be given time to recover. In accordance with strategic logic, Kabul fell quickly, but now Pervez Musharraf should not be allowed time for the Taliban, the declared enemy of the American President and the people of USA, Russia and India, to resurrect their “reformist Taliban”. After Northern Alliance victories in Mazar-e-Sharif, Taloqon, Bamiyan and Kabul, it seems that the Bush White House is losing its nerve just as the senior Bush lost his nerve in dealing with Saddam Hussein. There is a rift in American decision-making at the highest level. London is making noises on behalf of Colin Powell and Musharraf even though the photo opportunities are between Blair and Bush. The American embassy’s political team in New Delhi appears bewildered in its assessments. Youthful Ashley Tellis, the senior adviser in the embassy, has a nuclear and naval background but none relating to Afghanistan affairs, and he seems to be making inputs into American policy thinking in New Delhi. The American defence establishment is divided and confused about military and political aims in Afghanistan just when the Northern Alliance is winning and the Taliban is on the run. Now barbers are in short supply in Afghanistan to cope with the demand to cut Taliban beards. Osama’s boast of invincibility has been shattered, and Taliban’s declared confidence in defeating the ground forces are now empty words. The core issue is as follows: Following the Northern Alliance’s military victories and the implosion of the Taliban as a fighting and psychological force within Afghanistan, the State Department and President Musharraf are frantically arguing that the Northern Alliance should not be allowed to rule Kabul. Musharraf worries about massacre in Kabul. As a part of the international coalition fighting terrorism surely the Northern Alliance can be expected to act according to civilised norms. President Musharraf should not apply double standards in demanding good treatment for the Taliban when Abdul Haq, who went in search of the moderate Taliban, was arrested, summarily tried and executed. Powell and Musharraf want to save the Taliban even though the Bush White House has sworn publicly to bring it down. The credibility of the Bush presidency is on the line if President Bush allows Powell and Musharraf to undermine the fight to the finish against the Taliban until it surrenders. A retention of a ‘moderate Taliban’ is a prescription for unmanageable instability in the region. American strategic and political aims are now being dictated by Musharraf. He wants to retain the Taliban in Afghanistan because a Talibanised Afghanistan and a pro-Taliban ISI-military combination are essential to retain the military option in Kashmir. There is a clear linkage between the two. If the linkage succeeds then the Powell-Musharraf line is likely to sacrifice American strategic initiative and interests in a stable Afghanistan, and instability there will affect the future of Central Asia Musharraf’s argument is self-serving. It is linked to ISI’s interest in Kashmir insurgency, as well as the preservation of the Taliban position in Afghanistan Musharraf’s next logical step would be to turn the Taliban forces against Kashmir. If this is the American plan, it appears that the Bush White House has a hidden agenda. The White House and the Pentagon along with Russia and India need to take a lead now by bringing out the view that the Northern Alliance is a force that is committed to stability and development in the region. It seeks a truly post-Taliban political arrangement, not a cosmetic moderate Taliban government. There are innovative ways to secure Pashtun representation without the Taliban whose rule was brutal for Afghan women and Afghan development. Russian tanks are helping the Northern Alliance in its military campaign along with American bombing and the ground forces. India must now strike a psychological blow against the pro-Taliban Musharraf line, which is a prescription for further conflict and possible a broadened conflict in the Afghanistan-Pakistan-Kashmir sector. New Delhi should urge Bush to bring closure to the divise internal debate on the issue, and to void a decision which leaves a festering sore in the region. The Northern Alliance is showing its strength in the ground battles, The Taliban had promised the ground forces a punishing fight, but in the heat of battle it has turned tail. It would be a betrayal of the Northern Alliance, as well as a lack of leadership and moral courage on the part of President Bush and Prime Minister Vajpayee to now protect the Taliban and Musharraf’s interests precisely when it is clear that the Taliban is a talking factory, and it should not win at the bargaining table, or in pre-bargaining moves, what it and the Pakistan Army-ISI combination has failed to gain in the battlefield in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Prof M.L. Sondhi is Co-Chairperson, Centre for the Study of National Security, Jawaharlal Nehru University; Prof Ashok Kapur is Chairman, Department of Political Science, University of Waterloo, Columbia. |
Shifting of District Courts to Ambala AT a mass meeting of the residents of Ambala Cantonment, held on the 17th October, 1926 under the presidency of Rai Bahadur Lala Benarsi Dasi, resolutions were passed cordially welcoming the proposal of the Deputy Commissioner to shift the District Courts from the City to the Cantonment and requesting the Government to give an early effect to the scheme. Some of the leading citizens like K.B. Lt. Amir Bakhsh, L. Kidar Nath, Propr. Metal Mart, Lala Anant Ram of Mohan Lal and Co., and K.S. Sheikh Abdul Majeed offered to construct suitable buildings if so required on accommodating terms. In the speeches made, it was pointed out that Ambala Cantonment by virtue of its having the largest population among all the cities of the District, its general lay-out, schools and colleges, hospitals and clubs and other like civic institutions was the fittest place for the headquarters of the District. It was the central place for the litigant public of the Tehsils. |
|
Noble indeed are all these; but the wise man, I deem to be My very Self. For steadfast in mind, he is established in Me alone, as the Supreme Goal. * * * Whatever form any devotee with faith wishes to worship, I make that faith of his steady. —
The Bhagavad Gita * * * Devotion is a complete surrender: It is not a part time affair or something taken on credit. * * * I thank Thee for all Thy love to me; As thou hast love me, so may I love. May I be more than conqueror over coldness, thoughtlessness, selfishness and constraint, through the memory of Thy love. Let me become great in love. —From Charlotte Skinner. The Marks of the
Master. * * * O adorable Supreme God, Grant us wisdom That we find delight in hard labour And be convinced that it bears fruit, Enjoyed only under Thy guardianship And with Thy blessings. Thou art the nourisher, the giver or all; Mayest thou guide the hard worker And bless him to enjoy the fruits of his labour. —
Rig Veda, 1.146.3 O men of Godly nature! Partake of His Divinity and experience the joy of ecstasy. —
Yajur Veda, 9.18 * * * Dharma proceeds from continence, truthfulness, austerity, charity, self control, forbearance, purity, non-violence, tranquility and non-thieving. One should recognise dharma by these ten factors. —
The Padma Purana, Bhumi Khanda * * * He who is bestowed with true devotion becomes God himself. —
Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Var Bilawal, M3, page 850. |
 |
| 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 | |
