Ashoka University was set up to provide high quality Liberal Arts education to India's rising upper middle class. However, the cheapest way to rise in University rankings is to hire celebrity shitheads who are part of a 'citation cartel' of a virtue signaling type. Because Ashoka is located in India, these guys can get credit for 'fighting Fascism' within 'the belly of the beast'. But, the Government won't bother to harass such doughty Social Justice warriors because they are completely useless. Thus these shitheads have to strike back at the Founders themselves- accusing them of being Fascist pawns. Thus Ashoka's predicament is that to rise in the rankings it has to hire people who blackguard its own donors and founders!
To fully appreciate the folly of Ashoka's primrose path to perdition consider the following screed by Ashoka alumni, Ayesha Pattnaik, which was published on the LSE website a couple of years ago-
In an ideal liberal democracy where citizens are guaranteed expansive liberties, the state is left with limited avenues to control its citizens.
This is false. Pattnaik is wholly ignorant of political theory.
Whether avenues are limited or not does not matter if such avenues as are available permit total control. This is the case in even the most ideal liberal democracy and is justified by the fact that 'uncontrolled' citizens of certain types might put an end to that liberal democracy with horrific consequences.
However, there is a presumption that total control of all citizens is neither desirable nor an end which the majority would wish to pursue. If this is not the case, then that particular country ought not to be a liberal democracy and will cease to be one in any case.
Censorship is limited by laws of freedom of speech and press,
No. Such laws have exceptions under which censorship can be total. The question is whether those exceptions are reasonable and proportionate. This is a justiciable matter.
surveillance is limited by the right to privacy,
once again, this is not the case. Surveillance may be total under specified circumstances.
and so on.
There seems to be some sort of omission or error in the next sentence.
Given India’s heterogeneity, in principle the democratic state’s role would be confined to fulfilling the needs of private interests groups, such that the state and its office bearers who would have little power to themselves.
This is garbled nonsense. A democratic state's role is not affected by 'heterogeneity'. Private interest groups can fulfil their own 'needs'. The State provides public goods and merit goods and fulfils various functions necessary to preserve its own existence. Those who hold authority in the State exercise power wholly on its behalf and not in their personal capacity.
And yet this is not the reality confronting India today, as in spite of an elaborate constitution, the contemporary state is omnipotent and omnipresent.
Ayesha is wrong about the 'ideal'. She is also wrong about the reality. India is very poor. Its Government is neither 'omnipresent' nor 'omnipotent'. However, in line with the actual 'ideal' theory, it has unlimited power along avenues of a perfectly legal kind. The question is whether power has been exercised in a reasonable, proportionate and lawful manner. This is a justiciable matter.
A key explanation for this lies in the fact that the state cannot be understood just through a theoretical examination of its institutions and laws.
No. The State is a legal entity. It can only be understood in juristic terms- which are necessarily theoretic because jurisprudence is theoretical and governed by deontic logic. However, justiciability always has an empirical element. But this has nothing to do with any type of 'understanding' of the State. It has to do with evidence of wrong-doing of a type admissible in a Court of Law.
What sort of 'understanding' does Ayesha have of the 'State'? Let us see-
Instead, an analysis of India’s sedition law reveals how state power is established by wielding the ultimate political instrument in a democracy: public opinion.
Ayesha is saying 'wielding public opinion establishes State power.' Is she aware that the British ruled her country for many years? Does she really think that some white guy turned up and wielded 'public opinion' so as to turn into a Viceroy living in a big palace? Perhaps. She mentions the Raj's sedition law which we still have. If only Mahatma Gandhi hadn't pleaded guilty to sedition, he could have 'wielded public opinion' and chucked out the Brits.
Reviewing the Sedition Law
The Indian sedition law, enshrined in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, was introduced by the British government in 1870 specifically to deal with revolution and dissent against colonial rule.
No. It was to deal with fanatical Muslim preachers who could have been easily dealt with under provisions of the Code.
While initially used against violent revolutionaries like Sarvarkar,
Nonsense! Hindu leaders like Jogendra Chunder Bose and Lokmanya Tilak were charged with sedition much before Savarkar's arrest. He was jailed for the much more serious charge of conspiring to wage war on the Government of India (Section 124A)
the sedition law was gradually used in colonial India to target non-violent nationalist leaders like Tilak and Gandhi.
Because 'violent' leaders were hanged or sent off to the Andamans. Revolutionaries weren't charged with sedition. They were tried, often by Special Tribunals, under a much more draconian act. Mahatma Gandhi's great pal- Bhai Parmanand was one such.
This shift was made in acknowledgement of the greater threat posed by these leaders spreading anti-colonial sentiments among Indian subjects.
This is nonsense. Tilak was charged with sedition in 1897 and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment. The Brits never changed their policy of using more draconian laws against revolutionaries while using softer means, when convenient, against mere talkers. Independent India followed suit. It was only in 1973 that sedition became a cognizable offense- i.e. arrest without warrant became permissible.
Gandhi noted in his trial that some of the most loved of India’s patriots have been convicted under Section 124A.
But the genuine Revolutionaries were hanged under more draconian laws.
Sedition in colonial India became synonymous with nationalism.
No. Attempts were made, after Provincial Governments were formed, to prosecute for sedition those who attacked particular Ministers or who disobeyed orders given by the District Collector. The British dominated High Courts and Federal Courts were inclined to take a more lenient view because they were delighted that Indian politicians were now the target of attack. In one case, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a charge of sedition against a White newspaper editor for an intemperate attack upon the policies of the elected Government.
However in 1947, the Privy Council decided the Federal Court was wrong to take a lenient view. Sedition was a more capacious crime and could certainly be the basis of the prosecution of any type of demagogue stirring up trouble for the administration.
The sedition law was criticised by nationalist leaders in India, and used to challenge the legitimacy of colonial rule that criminalised free speech.
But, as more and more Indians held public offices and as more power was transferred into their hands, they changed their tune. In particular, sedition was a good charge to bring against Religious fanatics and crazy Communists.
The irony of retaining the sedition law that persecuted India’s eminent nationalist leaders was raised by the political leaders of post-colonial India. Yet the law was not revoked. Section 124A of the IPC was altered in post-independent India to remove mention of British rule and define sedition as: ‘an act that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise’. While political leaders like Nehru expressed opposition to the sedition law, Constituent Assembly debates post-independence reveal an eventual recognition of the need for the colonial sedition law.
So, sedition wasn't 'synonymous' with nationalism at all.
Though the sedition law was found unconstitutional by several court judgements in the 1950s, the landmark judgement of Kedar Nath Singh vs the State of Bihar overruled them all declaring the constitutional validity of the sedition law.
But plenty of Communists had already been shot out of hand or jailed under more draconian laws.
This judgement clearly outlines that, ‘disloyalty to Government established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of Government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people or to secure the cancellation or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful means’. Subversion of the government is an offence, however criticisms of its actions is not. Inciting violence against the state is a crime, but expressing a non-violent opinion is a democratic right.
However, that right could be curtailed under the State of Emergency declared around this time in view of the Chinese invasion.
This judgement echoes international standards of freedom of speech, as under The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information of 1996, restrictions on freedom of expression are sanctioned on account of threats to national security.
However anything 'proscribed by law' could plausibly be said to arise from a threat to national security.
However, the narrow definition of sedition laid out in this judgement is frequently ignored by lower courts, particularly evidenced by the large number of sedition cases filed in contemporary India.
This is at least partly the fault of the Bench for extending the scope of justiciability. so as to gain 'interessement' or 'obligatory passage point' status.
The retention of Section 124A in independent India could on one hand suggest that the use of the sedition law represents a form of colonial continuity– an inevitable perpetuation of colonial power through the state infrastructure.
No it couldn't. The fact that some Indians speak English does not suggest that they are actually British Imperialists in disguise
What stands out however, is the extremely different patterns of how the law is used in colonial and contemporary India. Convictions under the law are abysmally low.
A good thing surely?
Data from the country’s Ministry of Home Affairs reveals that between 2014 and 2016, 179 people were arrested on the charge of sedition with only two convictions. Unlike in colonial India, most sedition cases today rarely even go to trial.
There is little point. The accused gets a scare thrown into him. That's all that is required.
The Citizen-Nation Dichotomy
Contemporary sedition charges seem to target selected individuals from disparate social movements.
All criminal charges must target 'selected individuals'. Indeed, the Courts can only look at cases involving specific people or named entities with legal personality.
Sedition charges are rarely levied against a large group, focusing on a few individuals representing a movement.
This is because 'incitement' is done by few though the riot may involve thousands.
The 2016 case against Kanhaiya Kumar, who was part of a JNU students protest and the case against Aseem Trivedi, a journalist who participated in the anti-corruption movement of 2012, suggests that the sedition law is used tactically to designate particular acts of dissent as threatening the nation.
All criminal laws are used 'tactically' so as to reduce the nuisance in question.
Trivedi’s chargesheet specifically stated his cartoons insulted ‘national honour’ and Kumar was accused of chanting ‘anti-national slogans’. This suggests a pattern where their crimes are not against the state or individuals representing the state, but against a larger entity of the nation.
The State represents the larger entity which is the Nation. Ayesha might have noticed that India is full of Indian nationals. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that Narendra Modi is not actually from Norway.
Given that the sedition law rarely leads to trials, leave alone convictions, what becomes especially important to study is the public discourse generated around arrests. While nationalism served as a defence against colonial sedition charges,
No it didn't. Tilak had a horrible time in jail.
in contemporary India it is instead used to accuse individuals of sedition.
Ayesha is unaware that only individuals can be charged with sedition. You can't file an f.i.r against an entire community. You must name specific people.
This invocation of the nation adds a moral aspect to these cases,
whereas there is no 'moral aspect' to cases of rape or murder
and leads for judgement to be passed by citizens without a trial.
I suppose what Ayesha means is that people accused of sedition are assumed to be anti-national. But it is also the case that people accused of rape are assumed to be sex pests.
Terms like ‘anti-national’ have gradually become more common to describe activists, intellectuals and other members of society expressing dissent, and the sedition law has played a crucial role in this.
No. The term 'anti-national' became institutionalized in the early Eighties. Indira Gandhi's Home Minister Buta Singh accused various Gandhian organizations like Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, the Gandhi Peace Foundation (GPF) and the Sarva Seva Sangh - and the Association of Voluntary Agencies for Rural Development (AVARD)- of engaging in 'anti-national' activities. The Justice Kudal Commission spent years trying to find evidence that they were fronts for the C.I.A. It was at about this time that the NGO which Ayesha works for was founded. I suppose it benefitted by the cut in funding to useless Gandhian schemes.
The sedition law and the discourse it creates around nationalism is directly pitted against the language of human rights and citizenship in the country.
I think Ayesha means 'Sedition is viewed as opposition to Hindu majoritarianism'. She has a point.
Bail pleas and press articles especially describe the sedition law as a violation of rights of freedom and expression. Human rights activists have been a frequent target of the sedition law. Since the sedition case of Binayak Sen v. The State of Chattisgarh in 2011, various human rights activists have been charged under the sedition law for alleged links with the Naxalite movement. The human rights activist Upendra Nayak, who has worked to challenge fabricated charges of Maoist links made against Adivasis in Odisha, was arrested in 2018 under similar charges with little public attention.
This is because there were also charges under Section 39 (2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In such cases, sedition involves conspiracy and attracts a higher tariff.
The Naxalite movement is repeatedly used to legitimise arrests made under sedition, and are often not based on association with violent activities of the movement. Instead even ideological alignment with the movement is considered a threat to the state, as seen in the case of Binayak Sen where possession of naxal literature was considered seditious.
A link to any banned organization or tie to any terrorist organization does indeed add to the gravity of the crime. However, so called Hindu terrorists too faced this sort of persecution. But, there was a big backlash. Sadhvi Pragya vanquished Digvijay Singh on his home turf in the last election.
This creation of a dichotomy between the citizen and the nation is extremely important as it suggests the rights of the citizen can compromise the honour and integrity of the nation.
This is not the case. No citizen may tamper with the integrity of the nation without risking dire punishment. Ayesha may believe citizens have a right in this respect. They don't. They must run away to some other country, or hole up in a remote forest, if they wish to escape the long arm of the law- unless, of course, the Government of the day is pusillanimous and more concerned with lining its own pockets than fending off secessionist or or other subversive threats.
The Indian sedition law doesn’t just presume that violent acts of terror are a threat to the state.
Ayesha doesn't seem to know that 'violent acts of terror' are dealt with much more harshly under a different section of the penal code. Sedition is thrown in along with other charges because it shows intent to form a criminal conspiracy.
It is primarily a law of thought-crimes,
How so? What forensic evidence does a thought produce?
wherein evidence of ‘excitement of disaffection towards the state’ is located in the thoughts and feelings of fellow citizens.
No. It is located in their likely actions as a result of having had their thoughts and feelings worked upon.
This suggests that the sedition law isn’t just used to target the content of the seditious speech, but rather the fact that it was expressed in a public sphere where it can influence other citizens.
Ayesha does not understand that sedition is an offense similar to libel. Speech or writing not communicated or not intended for communication is not libelous nor seditious or obscene. However, if your negligence causes such material to affect another, a criminal charge may be sustainable against you.
Sedition cases like those filed against Kanhaiya Kumar, Aseem Trivedi, Upendra Nayak and others are all similar in that they each invoke an idea of the nation.
All criminal cases 'invoke an idea of the nation' either by directly mentioning, as the adversary, the Government of India, or one of the States which comprises the nation of India.
This includes mentions of symbols or structures of the nation; a larger socio-political context of each individual being part of a larger movement opposing the state; the moral connotations of committing a crime against the nation and not just fellow citizens;
Ayesha's central confusion now becomes clear. She does not know that a crime committed on the territory of a Nation is deemed in law to be a crime committed against that Nation State. Thus if Ayesha breaks down my door and beats me with her chappal, though I may have a Civil action against her, she will be prosecuted by the Crown. This does not mean that the Queen, Gor' bless 'er, will bear any personal animosity to Ayesha. Indeed, she may greatly appreciate Ayesha's endeavors in this regard. However, Regina v Ayesha, as a Criminal Case, will still go ahead.
the creation of a popular discourse around the nature of sedition and the nation; and the challenging of sedition with a language of individual and human rights.
There is no 'popular discourse' around the 'nature of sedition'. Ayesha is welcome to verify this for herself. Instead of breaking down my door to beat me with her chappal she should try talking to ordinary Indian people. She will find most of them don't know what 'sedition' means. Some are so ignorant they haven't even read Foucault! What to do? Desis are so damn backward yaar.
Although vague, it is clear that through these charges an idea of a unified nation that has interests above those of citizens is created.
Wow! Ayesha thinks ordinary Indians, most of whom would not know sedition from perdition, have suddenly been brainwashed into thinking they belong to a 'unified nation' thanks to some silly discussions on English language media re. sedition laws.
Ayesha, I should mention, studied at the LSE as well as Ashoka University. Why has Harvard not appointed her a Professor? I suppose, if she can turn this article into a book, such indeed will be her pitiable fate.
Fuelling Public Opinion
It can be argued that the sedition law is used as a political instrument by different political parties to momentarily quell opposition and nothing more.
No it can't. To quell opposition you have to declare a State of Emergency and jail your enemies under M.I.S.A or some such act.
However, that the sedition law targets citizens like activists, students, and journalists who are clearly exercising their individual liberties suggests that the law is being fashioned by the state into a contemporary tool of surveillance.
No it doesn't. Surveillance is completely different from an investigation carried out after a person has been charged with a crime.
The objects of surveillance here are not just particular movements or speeches, but rather what Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out as the most dangerous instrument in a democracy, the ‘all-powerful force of public opinion’.
Public opinion can be easily ascertained by just asking your taxi-driver or barber or whatever. Indeed, the problem with 'public opinion' is that plenty of garrulous cretins will shout it into your ear whether or not you want to listen. Surveillance costs money. Public opinion you get for free.
No doubt, in a totalitarian country, the Secret Police have to set up microphones in places where ordinary people might vent their true feelings. India is not such a place.
Rather than view the sedition law as an instrument of a hypersensitive state unable to tolerate dissent, the law must be understood as a tool for constructing a sense of obedience to the state through a nationalist ideology.
Ayesha is saying that 'nationalist ideology' can create a 'sense of obedience'. Yet Indians were more obedient under the Raj. The effective enforcement of a capacious sedition law can indeed create 'obedience'. But Communist countries did this more effectively because they were prepared to kill their own kith and kin for ideological reasons. In India, the vast majority of the people are Nationalist but have no desire to either kill kith or kin nor wish to become 'obedient' to whichever bunch of rascals has managed to get elected.
While the sedition law should be used only in extraordinary cases of a threat to national security,
which Naxals and militant Islamists do pose whereas 'Hindu terrorists' don't
its repeated use suggests that it is preoccupied with controlling ordinary speech and expression.
But only about 500 cases have been filed since Modi came to power! India's adult population is near the one billion mark! How can you control 'ordinary speech and expression' by successfully prosecuting only a dozen or so cases? This article suggests Ayesha is completely mad!
In a post-colonial Indian state lacking a binding ideology of nationalism,
WTF! India was ruled by a party called the Indian National Congress. Its ideology was Nationalist. It is now ruled by a party called the Bharatiya (an ancient Indian word meaning 'India') People's Party.
God alone knows what Ayesha was taught at Ashoka! She should sue them and get her money back!
laws like sedition have been instrumental in creating an idea of the nation that coerces citizens into regulating their own freedoms.
The idea of freedom entails the absence of coercion of any kind. Ayesha's 'idea of the nation' is an oxymoron. Why not have an idea of the nation as a cat which is a dog?
Social media has become an important tool in legitimising arrests
Ayesha does not understand what the word 'legitimizing' means. Either that or she thinks that some guy tweeting bile has the power to make a thing legal or acceptable. Suppose she reads a tweet saying 'It is legitimate for you to go and break into Vivek's house and to beat him with your chappal'. Will she actually do so in the belief that the law requires her to perform this action?
and vilifying activists by labelling them as ‘urban naxals’. Court procedures and legal evidence of sedition is rendered unnecessary, as social media serves as a platform for shaping public opinions on activism in the country. The law is used to invoke a sense of fear in citizens, to coerce them into monitoring their individual liberties and limiting dissent.
I'm really worried about Ayesha. Clearly, an unscrupulous person could manipulate her by using social media. It may be too late for her, but I want to tell other students of Ashoka that the best way you can defend yourself against cretins who use Social media- e.g. the LSE blog- is by recognizing that Foucault and Bourdieu and Agamben and so forth were utter fools. There was something wrong with their brains. Their ideation was paranoid.
The fact is, if an activity attracts punishment or results in reduced income and life-chances, then, absent great stupidity or mental disorder, there is a strong incentive to stay the fuck away from it. Suppose Ayesha says to you 'Newton's Law of Gravitation is coercing you into not jumping off a cliff'. Should you defy this unjust colonial-era law by jumping off a cliff? Yes. But only if you can be sure that you will land upon the soft, soft, but very big, big, head of Pratap Bhanu Mehta.
The Space for Dissent
is created, in India, by spending 'other people's money'. If your parents are paying for you to go to College you may not understand that it behooves you to study useful things and make something of yourself. There will be plenty of mischievous people- some funded by NGOs and 'charitable' foundations- who will tell you to fuck up your own life so as to overturn Newton's Law or Modi's Law. Give such people a wide berth. That is the best sort of dissent for you when you are young. Later on, dissent from working hard so others get all the profit. Set up your own operation. Dissent from any guy who tries to swindle you of your hard earned money. Definitely do dissent from any Government which tries to pick your pocket on some excuse of the other. But don't bother with paranoid ideation. Mad people will supply it to you for free. You don't need to study it at Uni.
The dichotomy of nation and citizen brings out how in democratic India where the state has limited avenues to exercise complete power, the individual liberties of the citizen are considered a threat.
No. Ayesha thinks there is some 'liberty' possessed by a citizen such that a threat to Society might arise. This is not the case.
Laws designed to address extraordinary circumstances, like the sedition law
which was brought in in 1870 when no 'extraordinary circumstance' existed and which has been maintained ever since
and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, are used instead to build a narrative around state power.
What Ayesha is writing is a narrative- i.e. a fairy story. State power, in constitutional law, means the capacity of a state to regulate behaviours and enforce order within its territory not by telling stories but by using force.
It could be argued that the UAPA was part of a narrative re. supposed threats to India's external and internal security. However, there actually were such threats- e.g. Pak sponsored insurgency in Kashmir Valley in '65 and then the outbreak of Naxal violence in '67. However, since the Indian State has always showed ability to indulge in extra-judicial killing and torture on a completely unlimited scale, there was no point babbling about 'narratives'. No doubt, some Leftists and Bleeding Hearts might pretend that all terrorists were virtuous Gandhians but those guys were also pretending they were smart even though they taught shite subjects at places like JNU. We found this hilarious.
The truth is, after the Chinese war, the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 was enacted to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India.
But, India was able to do extra-judicial killing without invoking any law whatsoever. Still, the change in the Law meant that there was all party consensus in this matter. Basically, the Chinese had forced India to abandon any pretense of Gandhian non-violence. That was a good thing. Grown ups shouldn't play lets pretend.
The individuals charged under sedition are used as cautionary tales to citizens, to show how activities that may not even seem violent or directly harmful to the state can be seditious and warrant state action.
Ayesha has a point. Even the stupidest kids understand that getting sent to jail aint a good outcome. But staying on at Uni or getting a worthless job with some NGO or useless Foundation which squanders 'other people's money' isn't a good outcome either.
By understanding these narratives of nationalism as being specifically designed to undermine the rights of citizens, it is important to understand the rising nationalist rhetoric in the country as a direct threat to Indian democracy.
Ayesha is very sad that a majority Hindu country is acting like a majority Hindu country because of democracy. This is a threat to Indian democracy which should stop being so goddamned Indian, innit? Why it can't got to LSE and get Masters in Sociology? I hate you, Indian democracy! At the very least, Narendra Modi could change his name to Nicholas Maugham and quote Bourdieu or Foucault instead of Vivekananda or some other such darkie.
Expressions of dissent are no longer being understood as an exercise of democratic rights, and are instead considered threats to the nation.
Really? So, Ayesha thinks only about 500 people have expressed dissent to Modi or any other leader in India over the last decade. Wow!
The labelling of citizens as ‘urban naxals’ or ‘anti-national’, and suggestions that they belong to an invisible naxal-intelligentsia-media-academia-NGO-activist nexus seeking to threaten the nation is a means of coercing other citizens into silence.
The same could be said about labelling citizens as 'Hindu terrorists'. Modi himself was falsely accused of genocide. How did that work out?
The fact is nobody likes Naxals. They think 'intelligentsia' means stupid jhollawallahs handing out worthless Doctorates to criminalized cretins. Manmohan wasn't the first Congress PM to turn against useless foreign-funded NGOs.
As the idea of the anti-national citizen gains prominence in India, greater research
This shit is 'research'? What could 'further research' uncover? Is it that Nationalism is being used to stifle dissent against Newton's colonial-era law of Gravity?
needs to be conducted on how nationalism is being used to stifle various forms of dissent, not just through laws but the power of public opinion.
I learned the power of public opinion when I went back to my ancestral village after getting my LSE degree. An old lady asked me what I'd studied. I said 'Econometrics'. 'Is it Engineering?' she queried. 'No.' She frowned. My Dad quickly intervened 'too stupid for Engineering. Still, he has got a contract with a big Chartered Accountancy firm'. The old lady was relieved. I was clearly as stupid as shit but I'd be able to live decently.
Indian public opinion is worth listening to. This is 'the Condorcet Jury theorem' in action. If a billion people tell you to stop being a dick- stop being a dick. Get a fucking job in some boring but useful field.
In a world where freedom from fear is sanctioned as an international human right,
but, because the right is not linked to a remedy by an incentive compatible vinculum juris the thing is just hot air
one must question the need for a law like sedition that seeks to send shivers down the spines of citizens.
Ayesha is trying, but failing, to send shivers down our spines. Why? We know that 500 sedition cases in a country of 1.3 billion is nothing to get excited about. Who does Ayesha think she is fooling? Some goras at the LSE? They are laughing at her. Sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment