Round The World

New Delhi, 22 March 2024

Putin Wins 5^thTerm

INDIA & WORLD REACT

By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri

(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism) 

The landslide victory of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin in the presidential elections last Sunday with a historic margin has elicited reactions from across the world. It appears from the comments by world leaders that Russia’s break with the West and tilt towards China is almost complete. In the current geo-political order divided between the West and Russia-China axis, India is trying to remain non-aligned or in the new parlance, New Delhi is attempting multi-alignment. India says it will maintain the decades-long strategic ties with Russia whereas, at the same time, Prime Minister Modi has made new defence link with the United States and the European countries. 

The fifth consecutive victory of Putin which will keep him as President till 2030 will maintain the current world order marked by antagonism between Sino-Russian alliance and the Western powers led by USA, and the continuing deaths and devastation in Ukrainian war. Putin will continue the war with Ukraine and deepen the contacts with China. 

Out of about 140 million people and 114 million voters, 74.22 per cent voted in the elections. The nationwide turnout was about 7 per cent higher than the last elections in 2018 which was 67.5 per cent. Putin got 87.8 per cent of the total votes which is the highest ever in post-Soviet electoral history. His opponent, the Communist candidate, Nikolai Kharitanov secured just 4 per cent of the votes. This is by far the biggest victory any President has had. This will also enable Putin to overtake Stalin’s term in office for 30 years. Former KGB agent, Putin has been in office continuously since 1999 as Prime Minister or President. 

As said before, reactions are clearly divided between Putin’s critics and his allies and friends. The critics contend that elections were not fair or free. Substantial candidates did not have a chance to contest. The Election Commission of Russia did not give the clearance to candidates. For instance, BozisNadhezdin, an anti-war candidate was barred from running in the elections. International observers pointed out ballot stuffing and fraudulent counting. Elections in Russia have just been a ritual. 

Many Russian Missions faced protests against the polls. In Germany, these were led by YuliaNavalnaya – the wife of late critic of Putin, Alexi Navalny. They were complaining against mass censorship, persecution of genuine opposition leaders to Putin’s regime and manipulation of the electoral machinery. World leaders condemned the polling held in Russian-occupied Ukraine territories annexed during the war. The Ukraine President called it a crime to hold elections in their territory. 

Let us scan the reactions; first, those which were congratulatory and supportive. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi wrote in X, “Warm congratulations to HE Mr Vladimir Putin on his election as the President of the Russian Federation. Look forward to working together to further strengthen the time-tested special and privileged strategic partnership between India and Russia in the years to come.”Likewise, Chinese President Xi Jinping said that Beijing would maintain close communication with Moscow to promote the ‘no limits’ partnership they agreed in 2022 just before Russia invaded Ukraine. He added, “I believe that under your leadership, Russia will certainly be able to achieve greater achievements in national development and construction”. Recall that India-China-Russia are in BRICS which challenges US domination of the global economy. 

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman offered his congratulation on Putin’s decisive victory. Kremlin said that the two leaders expressed their readiness on telephone to pursue their ‘effective coordination’ in the OPEC Plus oil-producing group. The Iranian President EbrahimRaisi, accused by the West of supplying weapons to Russia, also congratulated Putin. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un who is also accused of sneaking arms to Russia wished Putin on his victory. North Korea is said to have shipped 7000 containers of arms to Russia. This was the accusation by South Korea’s Defence Minister, who said that the transfer of arms from North Korea began since last July. 

The reactions from Africa came from four countries in the Sahel region – Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and Chad. These countries strengthened their ties with Russia following the coups last year at the cost of their former allies France and the US. A Burkina Faso daily Aujourd’ hui au fasosaid, “In Africa, the Russian elections could sound like a non-event. But given the context in Sahel, it takes on a particular meaning, because Putin embodies the new geo-political balance of power on the Continent with growing (Russian) presence and influence”. 

The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a strongly worded message said, “Russian election has no legitimacy. It is clear to everyone in the world that this person (Putin), like many others throughout history, has become sick for power and will stop at nothing to rule for forever”. 

The US President Joe Biden had not commented so far. But the White House Spokesperson Vedant Patel on Sunday said, “Russian election was obviously not free, nor fair”. Citing repression of the opposition and media he said, “Putin is likely to remain the President of Russia, but that does not excuse him of his autocracy”. David Cameron, the former British Prime Minister and the current Foreign Minister decried the Russian elections which, “starkly underline the depth of repression under President Putin’s regime which seeks to silence any opposition to his illegal war”. 

The European Union Foreign Ministers met in Brussels on Monday to formulate their reactions to the war. They made strong statements but did not heed the request of Navalny’s widow not to recognise Putin’s new government. They, however, decided to impose sanctions on individuals linked with the mistreatment and death of the Kremlin critic Alexi Navalny. The German Foreign Minister said, “Vote was without choice, demonstrated Putin’s heinous behaviour against his own people”. France Foreign Minister cited increasing repression of civil societies and all forms of opposition to the regime. He hailed the courage of Russians who demonstrated against the election conditions. At the time of writing, 74 Russians were arrested for this. The EU foreign policy chief Josph Borrell said that the vote was based on repression and intimidation. 

The contrasting reactions from global leaders actually exposed the geo-political divide that has widened since the Ukrainian war that began two years ago. This has undoubtedly triggered the deepest crisis in power relations since the Cold War. India’s position on Russia vis-à-vis the Ukrainian war is by now well-known and somewhat grudgingly acknowledged by the Western powers. Yet, New Delhi has neither effectively bridged the gap between Russia and the West, nor did it offer to mediate between Russia and Ukraine. Even Turkish President Erdogan while congratulating Putin has offered to facilitate a rapprochement between Russia and Ukraine. 

Foreign Minister Jaishankar has pointed out more than once that the West is pushing Russia to China, and may I add India to Russia. If the West took a hard line on revanchist and expansionist China, it would have been easier for India to persuade Moscow to distance from Beijing and accommodate the West. The challenge for diplomacy both for India and the West continues. The West must make a choice between China and Russia, whereas India tries to bring Russia closer to the West. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 21 March 2024

Claims and Poll Prospects

By Inder Jit

(Released on 25 September 1979) 

Predictably if prematurely, the poll guessing game is on again. Anyone who even looks like having some clue about the popular mood and the possible outcome of the forthcoming general election is in demand. So also are the astrologers who are better placed than most others they have at least Bhrigu Samhita and the stars to go by not only those in seats of authority and their cohorts, but hundreds of others all over the country are busy getting them to peer into the future. Those anxious to retain power of aspiring to membership of Parliament want help to determine their prospects and tactics. Celestial guidance is also sought by scores of captains of industry and others to decide on the political horses they should profitably back and the best way in which they should hedge their bets. Seasoned politicians and observers alone prefer not to commit themselves and speak in parables or in general terms. Candidly, a discussion in terms of numbers is unduly early. The situation is still largely fluid notwithstanding loud, rival blasts.

Anything can happen between now and the New Year; the poll, according to latest indications, is still likely to be held on or about December 30. This will depend upon a combination of several factors: the prevailing circumstances at the time and the ability of the rival parties effectively to pose vital issues at stake before the people and to shake them out of their tragic indifference to their own long-term interest and that of their children. The situation has already changed greatly since August 22 when the President, Mr Sanjiva Reddy, dissolved the Lok Sabha unexpectedly. The Janata Party and its leaders found themselves down in the dumps that day. Within 48 hours, however, they were smiling again when Mr Morarji Desai and others addressed a “protest meeting” at the Ramlila grounds. Even the most optimistic among the Janata leaders were taken by surprise. Over a lakh of persons turned up at short notice in sharp contrast to the attendance at two earlier meetings, one convened by Janata (S) and the other by Congress (I).

Happily for the Janata leaders, their party prospects appear to have improved over the past month. On August 26, a top Janata leader told me: “Bombay’s welcome to Morarjibhai has been even better than the turnout in New Delhi. We should be able to get as many seats as we held in the dissolved Lok Sabha: about 200.” On Thursday, September 20, Mr Chandra Shekhar told me: “We will win at least 225 seats. We may well bag 300 if the present trend continues.” The Janata chief feels particularly confident on three grounds. First, popular response. “The crowds everywhere”, he says, “are twice those of 1977 and as enthusiastic.” Second, the people’s anger against the Janata is now turning against Janata (S). Few are willing to buy Mr Charan Singh’s “alibis” for the spurt in prices. Third, the people’s continuing abhorrence of authoritarianism. Asserts Mr Chandra Shekhar: “The 1977 vote was not negative. Our people voted positively for freedom and democracy.”

If Mr Chandra Shekhar is confident, Mrs Indira Gandhi, Mr Charan Singh and their respective confidants are no less optimistic. A senior Congress (I) leader told me: “Make no mistake, we are winning. Mrs Gandhi alone can give the country a strong and stable government. Our rock bottom is 240 seats. But we are hoping to win 350 seats.” He then explained: “We drew a virtual blank in the north in 1977. This time we expect to win here at least a hundred seats, giving us a minimum of 250 seats all over the country.” (Mrs Gandhi won 150 seats in 1977.) Top Janata (S) leaders dismiss the Janata and Congress (I) claims as “wishful thinking” and maintain: “Our Alliance alone will triumph. We will get at least 250 seats and may even go up to 325 seats. Each of our allies is going to concentrate in its respective stronghold. No, we shall not fritter away our energies. Chaudhury Sahib will concentrate in the north, Mr Urs and MGR in the south, Mr Chavan and Mr Pawar in the west and the CPM in the east.”

All these are essentially claims and counter-claims. Much will eventually depend upon certain vital factors and indicators -- the nature of the contests, straight, or multi-corner, and the attitude of the Harijans and the minorities who have played a crucial role in the poll outcome over the past three decades and more. The caste Hindus and the backward classes have, no doubt, constituted a majority among the electorate all along. But they have invariably reduced themselves to the position of a hopeless minority (and to nonce) by the unthinking manner in which they have exercised their franchise. Experience has shown that of every hundred Muslim voters, for instance, eighty or so make it a point to poll. What is more, all of them have generally voted for one common candidate. In sharp contrast, barely forty out of a hundred caste Hindus have normally cared to vote and, what is equally significant, they have invariably voted for ten or more candidates, if not for as many!

Not many remember certain basic features of India’s electoral landscape. Until the 1977 poll, the Congress virtually enjoyed the full or “captive” support of the Harijans and the minorities. This enabled the party to win electoral battles again and again. Some veteran observers place this support at about 25 per cent of the votes polled. The Congress thus required only a fraction of the remaining vote to win huge majorities; in 1971, it required merely an additional 18 per cent of the caste Hindu votes to win a massive majority of 352 of the 524 seats in the Lok Sabha on a minority mandate of 43 per cent --- 25 per cent plus 18 per cent. But the situation underwent a radical change in 1977, as a result of the Emergency and its many authoritarian excesses. The Muslims largely decided to oppose Mrs Gandhi and a sizable chunk of the Harijan vote also went against the Congress. The net result? The Congress Party got knocked for a six in the north and won seats only in the south.

Mrs Gandhi is well aware of the powerful support her party has received from the Harijans and the minorities. Indeed, it was this support as symbolised by Mr Jagjivan Ram and Mr Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed which enabled her to win her grim battle against the Syndicate in 1969 as also the poll of 1971. (Her first salvo against the Syndicate at the time of the great split, it may be recalled, was the joint letter Jagjivan Ram and Mr. Ahmed wrote to the then Congress President, Mr Nijalingappa, accusing him of “communalism” and of joining hands with the Jana Sangh!) Mrs Gandhi desperately tried to prevent any erosion in the support of the Harijans and the minorities in 1977. She clarified that Government action in regard to Harijans welfare had nothing to do with Mr Jagjivan Ram personally. She also repeatedly projected the Janata as a party dominated by Jana Sangh and the RSS. But all these efforts proved of little avail.

Much of what has been happening over the past few weeks is largely a part of the self-same exercise by the leading political parties: wooing the Muslim and Harijan voters by all means fair or soul and ensuring for themselves “some minimum committed support.” The Janata Party’s decision to go to the poll battle under the leadership of Mr Jagjivan Ram and to hold out to the Harijan voters the promise of giving them India’s first Harijan Prime Minister has created a major problem for both the Congress(I) end the Janata(S). More and more Harijans now appear inclined tο swing their support in favour of the Janata Party much to the chagrin of Mrs Gandhi. Efforts are consequently on to achieve one of two things: either get Babuji, as Mr Jagjivan Ram is popularly known, to somehow cross over to their side or to erode his credibility vis a vis the Harijan masses. Witness the occasional rumour that Babuji is about to join hands with Mrs Gandhi.

Ultimately, one thing alone is clear. There is little scope for going by the old and familiar indicators or by generalisations. The Muslims and the Harijans might have voted en bloc in the past. But neither can be taken for granted any more. Both communities today increasingly understand their abiding interest and are not going to be taken in by gimmickry. Likewise, the caste Hindus splintered their votes all these years. But they may not necessarily do so this time. (Lately, more and more people have been heard to say: “Is it a crime to be a Hindu?”) Again, Mrs Gandhi may appear to be riding a new wave of popularity. But there are still three months to go. The time for hard decisions is yet to come. --INFA.

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 20 March 2024

Land ‘Grab’, ‘Acquisition’

TOTAL REMEDY, NOT NEWS VITAL

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

The alleged land grabbing at Sandeshkhali village in West Bengal by a TMC leader continues to hit headlines, but such incidences shouldn’t come as a big surprise as the poor can rattle off cases of their land being unfairly taken either by government or business houses with support of political leaders. It’s a phenomenon across the country oft heard and rather could well even get camouflaged under the term land acquisition. 

This case has, however, drawn much more attention unlike others as it’s got entangled in the murky BJP-TMC rivalry and the alleged sexual abuse of the village women, which of course  is unacceptable in any civil society. Developments such as Prime Minister Modi referring to the incident innumerable times during his recent visits to the state; a division bench of Calcutta High Court directing the state to file an affidavit stating the plan to restore the farmlands allegedly grabbed and turned into pisciculture ponds; directing the CBI to file an affidavit stating how protection could be given to those who had lodged police complaints against land grabbing and sexual torture, domake news and shall be forgotten later. 

The larger picture, of land grab or land acquisition, which has been a phenomenon in the country since the 50s and 60s, simply gets lost. It would not be wrong to recall that even the government has somewhat forcibly taken land from people for various projects like widening of roads and highways, railway projects, power projects etc. And this has been done by paying a paltry sum to the villagers. 

At that time, there was no National Rehabilitation Policy, and the government didn’t deem it necessary to rehabilitate them properly so that these poor people could make a living at their new site. The poor were put to great distress,and some even squandered the money received in liquor and died due to untreated diseases like TB. Likewise, there’s the problem of taking away of tribal land and inadequate compensation been given, with suggestions coming that a national mission for effective implementation of FRA be set up so that all claims are sympathetically considered.  

Recall, the Tatas took away land from the poor tribals in building the township and the steel plant in Jamshedpur as per various reports to substantiate this. The suffering of those whose land was taken away had been documented as survival continued to haunt them. Insofar as land acquisition is concerned, government could justify it on grounds that it has been taken for essential infrastructure projects, but the question remains who benefits the most from such action. The roads and highways, which are normally 6-lane or even wider, to facilitate faster movement of traffic may indirectly help the greater community but essentially such movement of cars benefit the rich and middle-income sections of society. 

It is well-known that the land acquisition laws that India inherited from colonial times were undoubtedly heavily loaded against the interests of landowners and other people dependent on land for their livelihood. The Acts passed have enhanced the scale of compensation to be received by landowners and additionally provided for their rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) in the event of displacement. 

In fact, the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act of 2013 diluted most of the ruthless provisions of land acquisition act of 1894 and, most importantly, it made andeliberate attempt to put in place the building block for easy accessibility of land. It included the Act’s fundamental change--the introduction of compulsory prior consent from the farmer for acquiring land. Secondly, the major change in terms of replacing the administrative coercion for land acquisition with market transaction and increased finance to those left without land or livelihood. Thirdly, the Act also provided for a new national wide institutional architecture for rehabilitation and resettlement. Due to these changes, the 2013 Act has been considered as progressive and people-oriented act but only theoretically. 

Most states did not think it fit to judiciously enforce the provisions of the Act, as is the case with others. Moreover, with most of the state governments demarcating lands as Special Economic Zones, the problem has been getting worse. In recent years, the Act has been violated and its said farmers have to unwillingly part with their land with very little compensation and a bleak future. 

Land acquisition is indeed a sensitive subject and there are reports indicating that people whose land has been virtually taken have not benefitted to the extent they should have. It is critical ry to take stock of how much land has been taken away in the last five decades or so and whether the people, whose land has been taken away, are properly rehabilitated, as per the National Rehabilitation Policy, and earning enough for a decent livelihood for themselves and their family.    

Plus, the need to have case studies of land mafias, across states including West Bengal, Jharkhand and Bihar,who takeover land by paying a paltry sum of compensation to further their own business. It is also feared that in majority cases, the people who take away such land have the blessings of the ruling party, and in some others, leaders get a share of such transactions.  

Not only should fair and just compensation be given, but culprits who cheat the poor in the process of acquiring land must be brought to book. Experts have rightly sought the need for an independent expert committee to look into the right of the land loser to get fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition as also his consent in the matter. Unfortunately, the Act does not provide clear guidelines for calculation of what could be said ‘fair compensation’. And needs correction, keeping in view the rehabilitation aspect of the land loser. Additionally, there should be judicious resettlement and rehabilitation of the families affected. Failure to comply with these provisions should be viewed strictly and made punishable. Headlines of land grab or action against a solitary case is not a remedy.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

0Political Diary

New Delhi, 19 March 2024

Perpetual Dance Of Democracy

ONE NATION, ONE POLL, ANYONE?

By Poonam I Kaushish 

Its’ party time folks as India readies for its greatest nautanki of democracy: General elections April-May. Amidst the bugle sounding BJP’s rallying cry for ‘Ab ki baar 400 paar’ and Congress President Kharge warning it could well be the last election and death knell for federalism, Ex-President Kovind Committee’s 320-pages report recommending a two-step electoral process: Lok Sabha and Assemblies elections followed by municipal and panchayat polls within 100 days has caught the zeitgeist this week.

Including the suggestion that once the appointed date to bring into force provisions for transition to simultaneous polls is fixed, “tenure of all State Assemblies constituted in any election after the appointed date would come to an end on expiry of Lok Sabha’s full term irrespective of when an Assembly was constituted.” Moreover, Constitutional amendments to this effect would not need ratification by States.

Questionable are we moving to ‘One nation, One Election?’ Specially as the country has witnessed 400 polls to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies till date. And given Law Commission had thrice — 1999, 2015 and 2018 — argued for simultaneous elections to “free citizens, Parties and Government from encumbrance of asynchronous elections.

Ditto Parliamentary Committee 2016 which said holding simultaneous elections would reduce massive expenditure incurred in holding polls, underscored by Election Commission pegging cost of holding simultaneous elections at Rs 4,500 crore.

Undeniably, simultaneous elections could be economically viable and a big saving for exchequer. Welcome, as it would help avoid disruptions in governance and policy paralysis due to frequent polls as once a Party is elected and Government formed it can get down to work, take hard decisions in public interest and concentrate on delivering good governance without worrying  about its impact on vote banks.

Think. Several good initiatives are dumped due to electoral considerations lest it upset a caste, community, religion or region. All, becoming victims of policy shutdown, mismanagement and poor implementation.

Let’s face it. Post 2019 Lok Sabha elections, we witnessed 35 State Assembly polls. Now alongside Lok Sabha we have Odisha, Andhra, Arunachal and Sikkim followed by Maharashtra-Haryana October, Jharkhand November. February 2025 Delhi and December Bihar goes to polls. 

With 15 Parties opposing the report, challenge is the procedural details and Government’s disregard of citizens’ right to removing non-performing Governments. Besides, fear it militates against the federal structure of multiple diversities and Constitution’s spirit along-with complex legal procedures that Kovind report proposes for bringing Constitutional amendments which needs to be weighed carefully to allay fears of “infringing federalism.”

More. Opposition perceives one-nation-one-poll as imposition of BJP;s political agenda and extension of its ideological preference for homogeneity and uniformity vis-à-vis faith, customs, language, dress and diet given federal relations are fraught in rival ruled States. And it hinders political accountability and performance scrutiny.

Recall, post Independence, elections to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies were conducted simultaneously October 1951-May 1952 until Nehru Cabinet blotted the copybook by dismissing CPI-led Government in Kerala 1059. But with political instability gaining ground in the sixties, the cycle of simultaneous elections got disrupted.

While Punjab, Bihar and UP couldn’t complete their tenures on three occasions between 1967-1980, Odisha Assembly witnessed five elections during that period and West Bengal Assembly four elections 1967-1972. Resulting in many unstable Governments at Centre and States, leading to early dissolution of Lok Sabha or Assemblies whereby India could never go back to holding simultaneous elections again.   

Moreover, expenditure spiralled, doubling to over Rs 23 crores in 1980, further doubling to Rs 54 crores 1984 and Rs 154 crores 1989. In 1991expenses shot up to Rs 359 crores, 1999 to Rs 880 crores, 2004 Rs 1300 crores, 2014 Lok Sabha elections Rs 30,000 crores and staggering Rs 60,000 crores in 2019.

However, the legal and Constitutional position on Lok Sabha/ State Assembly term is challenging and requires amendments, including ratification by States to avoid future legal confrontation. An example: Article 83(2) and 172(1) aver Lok Sabha/ State Assembly term respectively should be for five years from date of its first sitting. 

But, both do not have a fixed term and can be dissolved earlier. Further, the provisos allow extension of Parliament/Assembly's term for six months at a time following a ‘proclamation of emergency.’ 

Besides, Article 356 allows Centre to bring a State under President's rule by prematurely dissolving its Assembly. But, the Anti-Defection Act, 1995 and Supreme Court placed several safeguards to prevent misuse of this power. 

Kovind’s proposal is not finding takers among INDIA Parties. Why should we agree to truncated tenure of our State Government, is a common refrain. They believe Government’s motive of simultaneous elections is to bridge BJP’s weakness in Southern States where it is hampered byt linguistic sub-nationalism and ideology. 

“It is motivated by political considerations, as when concurrent elections are held voters tend to vote for the same Party. BJP knows it has unparalleled dominance at national level. Also, poll issues at Centre and States are different which would create confusion. A Party could be deserving of support at the Centre for its policies and performance at the national level. Yet, it could be deserving of popular punishment and defeat for its policies and performance at State level. Also, this fractious process would strain our federal fabric,” said a Congress leader. 

Some argue a fixed term for Lok Sabha/ State Legislatures goes against Parliamentary democracy’s basic tenets. What happens if after simultaneous polls, an Assembly’s five-year term is interrupted by political realignments? Clearly, this would help the dominant national Party at the Centre and disadvantage the regional player.

What happens if a Government falls at the Centre or State mid-term? Or if a Government enjoying people’s mandate is voted out, it would continue to hold office or be replaced by another Government, which might not necessarily enjoy the popular mandate?

Plainly, a Government which lacks the confidence of the House would be foisted on people, with no say in the matter. Smacking, of de facto dictatorship or monarchical anarchy, an idea which translates into unrepresentative governance. It would impose artificial fixity on legislatures terms at Centre and States which is at odds with a system given its staggering diversity. 

To avoid this EC suggests a no-confidence motion against a Government must come alongside a confidence motion for another Government and Prime Minister and voting for both motions done simultaneously. Ditto in State Assemblies. 

As and when India ushers in ‘One Nation, One Election’ it will not be the first country to do so. In Germany, Bundestag (Lower House), Landtags (State Assembly) and local elections are held simultaneously. Philippines, too conducts simultaneous elections every three years, though it has a Presidential form of Government. 

True, there are cogent arguments on either side: Development vs accountability? Electoral expenses vs political choices? Governance vs electoral fairness?  Given how elections have an almost talismanic power in the country’s democracy the stakes couldn’t be higher. 

Remember, elections are the bedrock of our democracy, we should avoid polls duplication. With States perpetually in election mode, managing Government is akin to running with the hare and hunting with the hound. India’s democracy should not be reduced to a tu-tu mein-mein between Parties all the time. ---- INFA

 (Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)