Yeddyurappa: The game-changer or spoilsport?

[email protected] (Mathihalli Madan Mohan)
December 18, 2012
The Chances of political stalwarts ceding from parent parties, in search of their own political pastures based on their own performanance and image, have been quite bleak in Karnataka going by the track record in its 56 year old political history.

 

Many stalwarts, leaders with proven record of work in the parent party have tried and failed to chalk out an independent political life outside the fold of the parent party and have found themselves cast mercilessly out of the mainstream of political life.

 

The list is long enough, starting with starting with late K H Patil, Devaraj Urs,  Bangarappa, Ramakrishna Hegde and not but least the former Prime Minister, H D Devegowda.  Of them barring K H Patil all were former Chief Ministers and K H Patil was of the chief ministerial material though had no opportunity to shepherd the states affairs.

bsy 

Three of them belong to Congress and the other two belong to the Janata Dal, a new experiment initiated in Karnataka to  float the third political force, which has fallen asunder both at the state and the national level.

 

It is now the turn of the BJP, which has been in power for the past six years including the stint it had as partner in coalition, to produce one such person from its own stables.   The BJP’s first Chief Minister, Mr. Yeddyurappa, turned former Chief Minister, and is all poised to join the club. He has served notice of his intention to float his own party and try his electoral luck. The question is whether he will succeed in his gamble or meet the same fate as that of his esteemed predecessors.

 

It is the personal ego rather than anything else that has prompted these worthies to launch themselves on what is regarded as politically suicidal path. Before their tiff with the bosses, all of them had a proven record of service in the tasks assigned to them in their parent party.

 

Devaraj Urs for example was the man chosen by late Indira Gandhi when she caused the split in late 60s, by floating her own party the Congress (R).  Urs started out single handedly built the party brick by brick and played a crucial role in the partys resounding victory in 1971 parliament and 1972 assembly polls.  Urs had the distinction of being perhaps the only Congress Minister who implemented both in letter and spirit the 20 point programme of the party. It was during his second tenure as the Chief Minster in the post 1978 period, he developed rift with Indira Gandhi, broke away from the party to head the Congress (U), which failed to click in the next assembly election. This is despite the fact that Urs had reputation of giving a political identity to the Backward Classes.

 

K H Patil,’s rise in political ladder came out on the plank of anti Congressism  initially but he was drawn to Congress during the days of Indira Gandhis rebellion to become one of the valuable colleagues and comrade in arm of  Devaraj Urs.  As the specially chosen president of the state unit of the Congress of Indira Gandhi, he came in conflict with Urs in Karnataka  and when Urs withheld the financial help to the run the organisation, Patil proved that he  party did not depend on the charity of the then Chief Minister. He once mobilised the party MLAs in the Rajbhavan for a headcount to prove that Urs had lost the majority support within the ruling party and made him quit. Urs bounced back to power in 1978 and rival Congress unit headed by K H Patil was total washout in the polls. It could win two seats and polled 7.89% of the votes. Though Patil returned to the party after the exit of Urs, he had lost the political primacy and the Chief Ministers post eluded him till the last.

 

Bangarappa who was anointed as the Chief Minister of the state in as the ailing Chief Minister Veerendra Patil, who had successfully piloted the partys return to power in 1989, had been given marching orders by Rajiv Gandhi in less than a year in office, also did not long. Bangarappa fell out of the favour of the then Prime Minister late P V Narasimha Rao. And went out of launch his own brand of Congress called Karnataka Congress Party (KCP) as it was known.  In the very first trial of strength in 1994 election his bluff was called. He could win ten seats to poll little over 7% of the polled votes. But he had the pyrrhic satisfaction blocking chances of Congress retaining power. Seeing that there was no future for the party, the hand few KCP legislators moved over to Congress leaving Bangarappa in the lurch. Again he had lost the political sheen. Though he came back into the Congress again and later moved over to BJP, the lost political élan never returned.

 

The fall of the Ramakrishna Hegde and Devegowda, two of the original founders of the idea of the formation of the third front, runs rather identically. First it was Devegowda who rose in rebellion under the spacious plea  of inadequate resources for irrigation development, and later brought down his own party government lead by S R Bommai in 1988.  In the 1989 his outfit succeeded in winning two seats and polled a little over 11% of the votes. But his entry had a decisive impact in spoiling chances of Janata Dal retaining power and paved way for the return of Congress after a gap of five years.

 

After seeing the futility of ploughing a lonely furrow, Devegowda made it back to the parent party after showing signs of repentance to be rehabilitated as the state party president. He hit a jackpot in the 1994 elections, when he could become the Chief Minister and within two years he hit another jackpot. The Chief Minister, with a just 16 MPs in the loksabha catapulted himself as the Prime Minister due to quirk of circumstances outwitting  Ramakrishna Hegde who was eyeing on the post, since Gowda was safe in the home turf as the Chief Minister. Devegowda who is known to be vindictive in political life, did not spare the Samaritan  who had given a him a new lease of  political life and went to expel Ramakrishna Hegde,  from the party, notwithstanding the fact that Hegde was one of the pillars of the party.

 

As a result the onetime national icon, Ramakrishna Hegde, often projected by the media as the Prime Minister in waiting, found himself reduced to the state of regional leader in Karnataka. And the new outfit that he formed the Janata Dal (U) held on to the power for a while before going down in the next assembly election of 1999 to be completely wiped out in 2004.

 

Devegowda in his hurry to drum out Hegde could hardly realise that by drumming out Hegde, he was cutting at the very branch on which he was standing. His new outfit the Janata Dal S failed to catch the imagination of the voters and could hardly carry the legacy of the Janata Dal. The one time Prime Minister has found himself heading a “national party” with a sub regional presence in Karnataka.  His politics at the moment is centred around not on how his party could come to power (which is impossible at the moment) but on how to play the number game in this coalition of Karnataka politics to his advantage. He is confined to play a third fiddle in the state politics.

Now comes Yeddyurappa.  It is an undeniable fact that Yeddyurappa has played a stellar role in the growth of the party in Karnataka. As a matter of fact both of them grew together. As the party continued to acquire electoral clout moving from the leading opposition party  to partner in a coalition government and later became ruling party on his own, there was a commensurate rise in the status of Yeddyurappa, who moved  gradually to the top to become a Deputy Chief Minister and later Chief Minister in 2008. Nobody grudged the rise in the status and for the first three years of his regime as the first BJP Chief Minister he was the tallest of the political leader in Karnataka, with none having the stature and gumption to challenge him either within or outside the party. The high command trusted him implicitly. He was looking forward for an effortless completion of the present term and looked for a second term, which would have helped him to beat the record of eight years reign as the Chief Minister held by Devaraj Urs.

 

The vortex of the scams of sorts including that of illegal mining in which he and his government was drawn, triggered off his downfall.  The indictment by the Karnataka Lokayukta and denotification of land scams proved to be last nail in the coffin.

 

The high command which had given him a long rope had no other alternative in asking him to demit office till he was cleared of the charges. But he hedged for a while before giving in.  It was in this process that two of the hitherto unknown facets of his personality have come for public attention.

 

One is that from a loyal soldier of the party, Yeddyurappa has graduated to nurse a feeling that he is bigger than the party and that it is the party which should be beholdened to him than otherwise.

 

Secondly, his excessive obsession with power. It looks as if, Yeddyurppa cannot live without power for a single moment. All that tolerance which was there when he was in the opposition, appears have been overtaken by his six years experience in power. He feels that he is inevitable for Karnataka and that it is he only who is capable of leading the state on the path of progress. It is he or the deluge. This is what he would like the people to believe.

 

It is because of this that he has started throwing tantrums at all and sundry, hitting out  at the national leaders, and  deriding the party  patriarch like Advani,  berating the national leadership in general and national president Mr Nitin Gadkari in particular.  He has been quite critical of the way the party government headed by his own chosen protégés are functioning.

 

The prospects under circumstances for the Yeddyurappa’s new political outfit in the forthcoming assembly elections have to be assessed  taking into consideration some ground political reality.

 

Basically, the Karnataka voters  are  hardly prone to change their political preferences in the elections. It has been seen that despite the change in state leadership, there is hardly any change at the voters level as a class, with little variation here and there.  The political adventurism by anybody has hardly been able to influence the voters in any appreciable manner.

 

Added to this are some of the developments, which are peculiar to Yeddyurappa’s case.  One is the projection of Yeddyurappa as a Lingayat leader. Castewise constituencies developed by the leaders have never been beneficial, as has been experienced by Devaraj Urs, and Bangarappa, (OBCs) and  Devegowda (Vokkalingas). In the ultimate analysis, it has always proved to be counterproductive. Besides, Yeddyurappa inherited title after the exit of  Ramakrishna Hegde, a non lingayat  who was  immensely trusted by Lingayats of Northern Karnataka.

 

Besides Yeddyurappas own political propensities, which were manifest in the recent days have hardly enhanced his profession, namely the obsession with political power, and projection of his image as something bigger than party, besides his own act of reneging the party, which has given him the stature. It is quite unlikely that the potent weapon of appealing to the sentiments of the people, which Yeddyurappa successfully worked  during the 2008 election, projecting himself as a man wronged by the JDS, will work  this time. For the things are different this time. He has not been hounded out of the party but it is the party, which is being virtually blackmailed by him. It is because of this that the spectre of political uncertainty has been hanging on the minds of his supporter legislators as the day of the reckoning is drawing near.

*The writer is a senior journalist and columnist based in Hubli

 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
February 4,2020

As democracy is seeping in slowly all over the world, there is an organization which is monitoring the degree of democracy in the individual countries, The Economist Intelligence Unit. As such in each country there are diverse factors which on one hand work to deepen it, while others weaken it. Overall there is a march from theoretical democracy to substantive one. The substantive democracy will herald not just the formal equality, freedom and community feeling in the country but will be founded on the substantive quality of these values. In India while the introduction of modern education, transport, communication laid the backdrop of beginning of the process, the direction towards deepening of the process begins with Mahatma Gandhi when he led the non-cooperation movement in 1920, in which average people participated. The movement of freedom for India went on to become the ‘greatest ever mass movement’ in the World.

The approval and standards for democracy were enshrined in Indian Constitution, which begins ‘We the people of India’, and was adopted on 26th January 1950. With this Constitution and the policies adopted by Nehru the process of democratization started seeping further, the dreaded Emergency in 1975, which was lifted later restored democratic freedoms in some degree. This process of democratisation is facing an opposition since the decade of 1990s after the launch of Ram Temple agitation, and has seen the further erosion with BJP led Government coming to power in 2014. The state has been proactively attacking civil liberties, pluralism and participative political culture with democracy becoming flawed in a serious way. And this is what got reflected in the slipping of India by ten places, to 51st, in 2019. On the index of democracy India slipped down from the score of 7.23 to 6.90. The impact of sectarian BJP politics is writ on the state of the nation, country.

Ironically this lowering of score has come at a time when the popular protests, the deepening of democracy has been given a boost and is picking up with the Shaheen Bagh protests. The protest which began in Shaheen Bagh, Delhi in the backdrop of this Government getting the Citizenship amendment Bill getting converted into an act and mercilessly attacking the students of Jamia Milia Islamia, Aligarh Muslim University along with high handed approach in Jamia Nagar and neighbouring areas.  From 15th December 2019, the laudable protest is on.

It is interesting to note that the lead in this protest has been taken by the Muslim women, from the Burqa-Hijab clad to ‘not looking Muslim’ women and was joined by students and youth from all the communities, and later by the people from all the communities. Interestingly this time around this Muslim women initiated protest has contrast from all the protests which earlier had begun by Muslims. The protests opposing Shah Bano Judgment, the protests opposing entry of women in Haji Ali, the protests opposing the Government move to abolish triple Talaq. So far the maulanas from top were initiating the protests, with beard and skull cap dominating the marches and protests. The protests were by and large for protecting Sharia, Islam and were restricted to Muslim community participating.

This time around while Narendra Modi pronounced that ‘protesters can be identified by their clothes’, those who can be identified by their external appearance are greatly outnumbered by all those identified or not identified by their appearance.

The protests are not to save Islam or any other religion but to protect Indian Constitution. The slogans are structured around ‘Defence of democracy and Indian Constitution’. The theme slogans are not Allahu Akbar’ or Nara-E-Tadbeer’ but around preamble of Indian Constitution. The lead songs have come to be Faiz Ahmad Faiz’s ‘Hum Dekhenge’, a protest against Zia Ul Haq’s attempts to crush democracy in the name of religion. Another leading protest song is from Varun Grover, ‘Tanashah Aayenge…Hum Kagaz nahin Dikhayenge’, a call to civil disobedience against the CAA-NRC exercise and characterising the dictatorial nature of the current ruling regime.

While BJP was telling us that primary problem of Muslim women is Triple talaq, the Muslim women led movements has articulated that primary problem is the very threat to Muslim community. All other communities, cutting across religious lines, those below poverty line, those landless and shelter less people also see that if the citizenship of Muslims can be threatened because of lack of some papers, they will be not far behind in the victimization process being unleashed by this Government.

While CAA-NRC has acted as the precipitating factor, the policies of Modi regime, starting from failure to fulfil the tall promises of bringing back black money, the cruel impact of demonetisation, the rising process of commodities, the rising unemployment, the divisive policies of the ruling dispensation are the base on which these protest movements are standing. The spread of the protest movement, spontaneous but having similar message is remarkable. Shaheen Bagh is no more just a physical space; it’s a symbol of resistance against the divisive policies, against the policies which are increasing the sufferings of poor workers, the farmers and the average sections of society.

What is clear is that as identity issues, emotive issues like Ram Temple, Cow Beef, Love Jihad and Ghar Wapasi aimed to divide the society, Shaheen Bagh is uniting the society like never before. The democratisation process which faced erosion is getting a boost through people coming together around the Preamble of Indian Constitution, singing of Jan Gan Man, waving of tricolour and upholding the national icons like Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, Ambedkar and Maulana Azad. One can feel the sentiments which built India; one can see the courage of people to protect what India’s freedom movement and Indian Constitution gave them.

Surely the communal forces are spreading canards and falsehood against the protests. As such these protests which is a solid foundation of our democracy. The spontaneity of the movement is a strength which needs to be channelized to uphold Indian Constitution and democratic ethos of our beloved country.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
March 14,2020

In the wake of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) UN High Commissioner, Michele Bachelet, has filed an intervention in the Supreme Court petition challenging the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act, as she is critical of CAA. Responding to her, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jai Shanker strongly rebutted her criticism, saying that the body (UNHCR) has been wrong and is blind to the problem of cross border terrorism. The issue on hand is the possibility of scores of people, mainly Muslims, being declared as stateless. The problem at hand is the massive exercise of going through the responses/documents from over 120 crore of Indian population and screening documents, which as seen in Assam, yield result which are far from truthful or necessary.

The issue of CAA has been extensively debated and despite heavy critique of the same by large number of groups and despite the biggest mass opposition ever to any move in Independent India, the Government is determined on going ahead with an exercise which is reminiscent of the dreaded regimes which are sectarian and heartless to its citizens, which have indulged in extinction of large mass of people on grounds of citizenship, race etc. The Foreign minister’s assertion is that it is a matter internal to India, where India’s sovereignty is all that matters! As far as sovereignty is concerned we should be clear that in current times any sovereign power has to consider the need to uphold the citizenship as per the principle of non-discrimination which is stipulated in Art.26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political (ICCPR) rights.

Can such policies, which affect large number of people and are likely to affect their citizenship be purely regarded as ‘internal’? With the World turning into a global village, some global norms have been formulated during last few decades. The norms relate to Human rights and migrations have been codified. India is also signatory to many such covenants in including ICCPR, which deals with the norms for dealing with refugees from other countries. One is not talking of Chicago speech of Swami Vivekanand, which said that India’s greatness has been in giving shelter to people from different parts of the World; one is also not talking of the Tattariaya Upanishad’s ‘Atithi Devovhav’ or ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam’ from Mahaupanishad today.

What are being talked about are the values and opinions of organizations which want to ensure to preserve of Human rights of all people Worldwide. In this matter India is calling United Nations body as ‘foreign party’; having no locus standi in the case as it pertains to India’s sovereignty. The truth is that since various countries are signatories to UN covenants, UN bodies have been monitoring the moves of different states and intervening at legal level as Amicus (Friend of the Court) to the courts in different countries and different global bodies. Just to mention some of these, UN and High Commissioner for Human Rights has often submitted amicus briefs in different judicial platforms. Some examples are their intervention in US Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, International Criminal Court, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. These are meant to help the Courts in areas where UN bodies have expertise.

 Expertise on this has been jointly formulated by various nations. These interventions also remind the nations as to what global norms have been evolved and what are the obligations of individual states to the values which have evolved over a period of time. Arvind Narrain draws our attention to the fact that, “commission has intervened in the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving Spain and Italy to underscore the principle of non-refoulement, which bars compulsory expulsion of illegal migrants… Similarly, the UN has intervened in the International Criminal Court in a case against the Central African Republic to explicate on the international jurisprudence on rape as a war crime.”

From time to time organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been monitoring the status of Human rights of different countries. This puts those countries in uncomfortable situation and is not welcome by those establishments. How should this contradiction between ‘internal matter’, ‘sovereignty’ and the norms for Human rights be resolved? This is a tough question at the time when the freedom indices and democratic ethos are sliding downwards all over the world. In India too has slid down on the scale of these norms.

In India we can look at the intervention of UN body from the angle of equality and non discrimination. Democratic spirit should encourage us to have a rethink on the matters which have been decided by the state. In the face of the greatest mass movement of Shaheen bagh, the state does need to look inwards and give a thought to international morality, the spirit of global family to state the least.

The popular perception is that when Christians were being persecuted in Kandhmal the global Christian community’s voice was not strong enough. Currently in the face of Delhi carnage many a Muslim majority countries have spoken. While Mr. Modi claims that his good relations with Muslim countries are a matter of heartburn to the parties like Congress, he needs to relook at his self gloating. Currently Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia and many Muslim majority countries have spoken against what Modi regime is unleashing in India. Bangladesh, our neighbor, has also seen various protests against the plight of Muslims in India. More than the ‘internal matter’ etc. what needs to be thought out is the moral aspect of the whole issue. We pride ourselves in treading the path of morality. What does that say in present context when while large section of local media is servile to the state, section of global media has strongly brought forward what is happening to minorities in India.   

The hope is that Indian Government wakes up to its International obligations, to the worsening of India’s image in the World due to CAA and the horrific violence witnessed in Delhi.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
August 9,2020

Contrary to present impression that Muslims are separatists due to whom the partition of India took place, the truth is that Muslims contributed to freedom movement and upheld India’s composite culture in equal measure. The partition process, mainly due to British policy of ‘divide and rule’ well assisted by Hindu and Muslim communalists is being hidden from the popular vision in India and Muslims in general are held responsible for the same. Not only that the communal historiography introduced by British to pursue their policies has become the bedrock of communal politics and worsening of the perceptions about Muslims is in progress in India.

Yet another example of this has been a series of tweets by the bureaucrat, who is close to retirement, K. Nageshwar Rao. Contrary to the service rules he has made statements, through his tweets which are appreciative of RSS-BJP and demonise the stalwarts Muslim leaders who not only contributed to the freedom movement but also later gave valuable service in laying the foundation of Independent India. As per Rao, his tweets he accuses Maulana Azad and the other Muslim Education ministers of “deracination of Hindus”. After naming “Maulana Abul Kalam Azad — 11 years (1947-58)”; “Humayun Kabir, M C Chagla & Fakruddin Ali Ahmed — 4 years (1963-67)”; and, “Nurul Hassan — 5 years (1972-77)”, he posts: “Remaining 10 years other Leftists like VKRV Rao.”

He points out that their policies were meant to “1. Deny Hindus their knowledge, 2. Vilify Hinduism as collection of superstitions, 3. Abrahamise Education, 4. Abrahamise Media & Entertainment, 5. Shame Hindus about their identity!  and 6. Bereft of the glue of Hinduism Hindu society dies.”

Then he goes on to praise RSS-BJP for bringing the glory back to Hindus. These statements of his on one hand promote the Hate and on the other tantamount to political statement, which civil servants should not by making. CPM politburo member Brinda Karat has written a letter to Home Minister Amit Shah to take suitable action against the erring bureaucrat.

Rao begins with Maulana Abul kalam Azad. Surely Azad was one of the major leaders of freedom movement, who was also the youngest President of INC, in 1923 and later between 1940 to 1945. He opposed the partition process tooth and nail till the very last. As the Congress President in 1923 he wrote a remarkable Para, symbolizing the urge for Hindu Muslim unity, “If an angel descends from heaven and offers me Swaraj in 24 hours on condition that I give up Hindu Muslim Unity, I will refuse. Swaraj we will get sooner or later; its delay will be a loss for India, but loss of Hindu Muslim unity will be a loss for human kind”. His biographer Syeda Hamid points out “He spoke without an iota of doubt about how debacle of Indian Muslims has been the result of the colossal mistakes committed by Muslim League’s misguided leadership. He exhorted Muslims to make common cause with their Hindu, Sikh, Christian fellow countrymen.” He was the one who promoted the translation of Hindu scriptures Ramayan and Mahabharat in to Persian.

Surely Mr. Rao, neither has read Azad or read about him nor knows his contributions to making of Modern India. While today, the ideological formation to which Mr. Rao seems to be pledging his commitment is critical of all that happened during Nehru era, it was during this period when as education minister Azad was shepherding the formations of IITs, Academies of Science, Lalit kala Academies. It was during this period that the efforts to promote Indian composite culture were undertaken through various steps.

The other stalwarts who are under the hammer have been outstanding scholars and giants in their own field of education. Humayun Kabir, Nurul Hasan, Dr.Zakir Husssain gave matchless ideas and practical contributions in different fields of education. One can say that contrary to the accusations, India could match up to the Computer era, software and associate things, due to creation of large manpower in these areas mainly due to these foundations which were laid down particularly in the field of education during this period.

The charge that these ‘Muslim’ education ministers white washed the bloody Islamic rule is a blind repetition of the offshoot of communal historiography introduced by British. While Kings were ruling for power and wealth, their courts had Hindus and Muslim both officers. The jaundiced vision sees this as a bloody Islamic rule but as a matter of fact the syncretic culture and traditions developed precisely this period. It was during this period that Bhakti Traidtion with Kabir, Tukaram, Namdeo, Tulsidas flourished. It was during this period that humane values of Sufi saints reached far and wide. It was during this period that poets like Rahim and Raskhan produced their classic literature n praise of Hindu Gods.

We also need to remind ourselves that large number of Muslims participated in the freedom Movement. Two scholars Shamsul Islam and Nasir Ahmad have come out with books on the myriad such freedom fighters, to recall just a few names. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Zakir Hussain, Syed Mohammad Sharfuddin Kadri, Bakht Khan, Muzzafar Ahmad, Mohammad Abdir Rahman,, Abbas Ali, Asaf Ali, Yusuf Mehrali, Maulana Mazahrul Hague.

These are just a few of the names. The movement, led by Gandhi, definitely laid the foundations where composite Indian culture and respect for all religions, others’ religion was paramount and this is what created Indian fraternity, one of the values which finds its place in the preamble of Indian Constitution.

This blaming of Education ministers who were Muslims is an add-on to the process of Islamophobia in India. So for there have been many actions of Muslim kings which are selectively presented as being bloody, now the post Independent History, where glorious contributions have been made by Muslim leaders are being used to further deepen the divisive process. We need to pay respects to builders of modern India, irrespective of their religion.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.