Editorial 1/ Married to sense
Editorial 2/ Kill potential
Tugging at the purse strings
Hullabaloo on the campus and a stir in the system
Fifth Column/ What a coalition doesn’t stand for
Letters to the editor

It is amazing how long women have to fight to correct injustices that are staring the world in the face. Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, promulgated in 1869, quite firmly places Christian women in India at a disadvantage in relation to their husbands. Based on the British matrimonial causes act of 1857, it makes adultery the sole ground of divorce. A husband only has to prove adultery to get a divorce, a wife must prove adultery with desertion or cruelty or — strangely enough — bigamy, in order to ask for a divorce. In other words, it gives the husband the privilege to seek divorce, while the woman is barred from the right as far as is practical. Ironically, the parent law in Britain has been modified more than once, making cruelty, desertion, insanity independent grounds. Divorce laws in India for other communities have been modernized too, though not all of them sufficiently. Christian women in India, fighting for change in the unjust section in their divorce law since the Eighties, have had a peculiarly rough deal. It is reason for great relief that the Centre has now cleared the necessary amendment. Even the Catholic church in India is now amenable, although it does not recognize divorce itself. But once the amendment is implemented, Christian women of other denominations will be allowed to seek divorce under any of the 13 grounds mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act, of which the most necessary are mutual consent and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Gender justice is slow in coming, as this amendment shows. In the case of personal law and laws relating to particular communities, the landscape is always rougher than usual. Politicians are either too diffident or too brazen about minority sentiments, and reforms are clogged by useless wrangles over political intention and intervention in personal law. It may be noted in passing that this happens most frequently whenever women are meant to benefit from the projected reform. Perceptions of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s interest in Hindutva have queered the pitch further. The last time the BJP-led Union government proposed the same amendment, it was tied up with conditions that appeared to underline the BJP’s suspicion of conversion. The entire Christian community sheered off. This time the situation is far better. It may augur well for Muslim women too, since modifications in the practice of oral triple talaq are also being considered. The most promising thing about the last is that the urge for reform has come from within the community, and change is therefore unlikely to be rejected as intervention of the majority into minority personal law. Reform, or even the promise of it, has been very slow in coming. But now that a convergence of circumstances has made it possible, it is to be hoped that politicians do not make a hash of it again.


A Texan ranch is as good a setting as any to ponder the meaning of human life. And this is what Mr George W. Bush seems to be doing on holiday in Crawford after months of what he has called “sifting”. After long deliberation, the president has recently declared that it would be “right for America” to come to a compromise on the issue of federal funding for stem cell research. Taxpayers’ money will fund research only on already existing lines of cells extracted from human embryos, created — but eventually left unused — for fertility treatment. The state will not fund research involving the fresh destruction of embryos, either discarded by fertility clinics or, worse still, specifically created for the purpose of extracting stem cells. Entangled with the protracted, and often acrimonious, debate on abortion and overlapping with such issues as euthanasia and infanticide, this question of the moral status of a cluster of human cells straddles biology, ethics and, less exaltedly, electoral politics. The ethical divide is clear, although its resolution is necessarily complex and challenging. On the one hand, this would entail deciding whether a human embryo in its first stages is “life” or merely the “potential for life”, and what the destruction of each would mean. On the other hand, the stem cells extracted from these embryos are at the centre of research that could transform the treatment of diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, type I diabetes and some fatal cardiac conditions. Restricting this research to a few existing cell lines would be imposing an almost absurd, and quite impossible, constraint on a range of scientific endeavours which could substantially enhance the quality of human life.

Interestingly, Mr Bush’s stance on stem cells has complicated the traditional political divide. Conservative Republicans who had opposed abortion have now seen the logical extension of their “pro-life” commitments to include the support of stem cell research and its medical benefits. This has skewed relations between the ethics of stem cells and of abortion or euthanasia. Mr Bush’s compromise is thus directly related to his promise — to the Republican right and to such religious bodies as the United States conference of Catholic bishops. The consequent ethical conflicts have even necessitated a president’s council on bioethics. The debate encompasses the more sensational issue of human cloning, all forms of which may be banned by a bill recently voted for by the house of representatives. In the case of stem cells, the question is not of legality but of public funding. Stem cell research could be, and is being, carried on quite freely with private money. Perhaps such double standards are inevitable when it is no longer possible to keep the technologies of life and death, of healing and killing, distinct from the claims of morality and indeed of the market.


One of the consequences of the increasingly globalizing economy is that the economy of any one country is gradually exposed to the consequences of what happens in another. The Indian economy is also sensitive to what happens in the rest of the world. The global economic trends in recent months and years have not been satisfactory. The fact that the global economic growth has stalled in the last quarter is significant for India.

A recent report on global trends circulated by the respected investment bank, J.P. Morgan, gives authoritative figures on the prospects of the world economy. (I refer to J.P. Morgan’s report on world financial markets for the third quarter of 2001.) The report states that while there are prospects for a gradual return of trend-growth, particularly in the United States, the return to steady growth will be both sluggish and unevenly distributed. The report, however, gives a clear vision that the world will avoid an outright recession, since most of the causes for the reduced growth have been addressed and/or are under process of being reversed.

Reports from the US media speak of rising job cuts and low profits. The stock markets also responded with a slowdown. This is accompanied by slowing down of inflation. On the whole, the global economy is suffering from the effects of over-investments and attempts to cut down production to match the low demand. This is reflected in the lower inflation, the US consumer price index showing an inflation rate in the region on 2.4 per cent, while the other major economy, Japan, shows a decline in prices of both producer and consumer goods. Japan’s economy has been characterized by a fall of consumer prices at the rate of 0.6 per cent annually. This is also reflected in a decline in asset prices, both real estates and shares. Banks are in trouble because the security for the loans is correspondingly decreased.

J.P. Morgan’s report points out that one of the primary causes for the recent decline in the growth of the global economy has been the rise in the over-investments in hi-tech industries, especially in the US, and subsequent decline. This weakened the demand for the output of electronic industries in many economies, including southeast Asia. In fact, the technology slide has impacted these economies, driving them into recession. This was to be expected considering that the technology equipment industry had reached an annual output growth of roughly 70 per cent in early 2000.

J.P. Morgan’s report points out that one of the factors responsible for constraining the earlier growth and subsequent slowdown in the US economy has been the tightening of the monetary policy. Opinions differ on this. Credit is rightly given to Alan Greenspan for fine-tuning his country’s monetary policy initiatives. Greenspan’s magic had, however, failed to work in averting the slowdown of the US economy, with impact on the world economy as a whole.

The US dollar continues to be strong . The US economy continues to attract a capital flow of the order of nearly $ 450 billion a year. This is because of the high standing the US financial instruments enjoy in the rest of the world. The US is a safe haven for funds, flowing not only from developed countries of the world, but also from its poorer half. The foreign exchange reserves of all developed countries also find a resting-place in the central bank of the US, an involuntary loan by the developing countries to the richest economy of the world, the US.

The continuing strength of the dollar has caused worry amongst the American industrialists, who fear that their export competitiveness is affected adversely. This leads to projectionist pressures on the US administration, as has been recently evidenced in the US action restricting import of steel from the rest of the world.

J.P. Morgan’s report offers interesting projections on the various economies of the world. The first point to note is that in spite of all the pessimistic forecasts of the Indian observers and the latest Standard & Poor rating, India is one of the economies that has been doing well in the world. While the global economic growth has slipped below two per cent in 2001, the Indian economy has been continuing to grow at a rate ranging between 5-6 per cent. All this has been accomplished with relatively low inflation and with no visible strain on the balance of payment.

Lest this offers ground for complacency, it is important to note the comparisons between India and China. The Chinese gross domestic product has grown at the rate of 7.5 per cent against India’s 5.3 per cent. Inflation control in China has also been excellent at 1.6 per cent against India’s 5 per cent. An important factor for this has been the low fiscal deficit in China, at 2.7 per cent against India’s 7 per cent. The balance of trade was in surplus of $ 27.7 billion in China, as against India’s negative figure of $ 9.1 billion.

The current account balance in the Chinese case contributed to a surplus of $ 15.4 billion against a negative figure of $ 1.6 billion for India. China’s forex reserves stand at $ 178 billion against our $ 43.8 billion. The total external debt of China was 50 per cent of its exports as against ours, which stands at 139 per cent. India should try to benchmark itself in economic performance against China, rather than other weak neighbours.

J.P. Morgan’s report is usually relied on for its forecasts on forex rates. Referring to Japan, the report points out that the Japanese weak economy may well portend a weakening of the yen. The new prime minister of Japan, Junichiro Koizumi, is determined to start a number of structural reforms. The irony of the situation is that these reforms, if enacted, may themselves worsen the pains of the cyclical downturn in Japan. The awakening of the yen may be a signal for China to devalue, which will result in a competitive devaluation by other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Any such development will have serious repercussions not only in east Asia-Pacific, but in the world as a whole.

J.P. Morgan’s report forecasts that India will have a modest growth output and benign inflation in 2001. Given these, it predicts that public spending may be stepped up to provide impetus to a sagging economy. The fiscal deficit may not be kept within the targets laid down by the finance minister. The report ventures a forecast that the exchange rate will reach Rs 50 per dollar by the first half of 2002.

What does the report portend for the future profile of commodity prices? Referring to oil prices, the report stresses that the significant feature of the oil price behaviours has been the consistency of the oil prices in spite of a high demand from the overheated US market. Contributor factors are the increasing political cohesion and close networking of key members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. J.P. Morgan’s report predicts that the oil prices will remain within the targeted band of OPEC, that is, US$ 27.9 per barrel in 2001 and US$ 25.8 per barrel in 2002.

The fact that oil prices will remain high, although not excessively so, will indicate that it is time for the government of India to smoothen the oil prices. The government cannot afford to delay the adjustments in product prices. The deficit in the oil pool account is already high.

To sum up, the global economic trends have an important impact on India’s macro-economy. The decline in the major economies of the world will, in turn, impact the export prospects in India. Particular reference has to be made to its effect on the software sector. It will be wise for the government to prepare an alternative policy track for being able to face the consequences of the global downturn. It may well be necessary to take radical fiscal decisions, such as tax relief to entrepreneurs in distress as a result of the declining global economy. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

The author is former governor, Reserve Bank of India


The young people who had come to get admission at Presidency College last Thursday week were in for a shock. Locked counters, slogan-shouting and loud wrangling are not things one expects on one’s first day at college, especially if the college is one of the most revered institutions in the country. But perhaps the discordant experience is a foretaste of a session of far-reaching transformations that the freshers, not only in Presidency College but in all state-run colleges, are going to experience and participate in.

The hike in students’ fees, effected from this year, is not just another move that the West Bengal government has been compelled to make because of economic exigency. A number of postulates must have gone into it, and it might usher in certain fundamental changes in the nature and functioning of our educational institutions.

After coming to power, one of the first moves of the Left Front was to make education up to the higher secondary level absolutely free. A nominal fee structure remained at colleges and universities. But against rising operating costs and teachers’ enhanced salaries, this meant, in spite of the substantial grants from the University Grants Commission, making large funds available for higher education.

In a fund-strapped state, with investments in vital sectors languishing, allocating close to one-fourth of the budget to education meant that the government had set for itself certain priorities and duties. By raising fees and inviting private investments, is it now beginning to abdicate those duties?

A yes-no answer would completely ignore the issues involved here. From the Ashok Mitra commission’s recommendations to Amartya Sen’s pointers, from people’s perceptions of the state of our education to the large-scale migration of our students to private-run institutes in other states, from the flourishing industry of private tuition to our state’s performances in all India examinations, from UGC’s hegemonic presence to the pulls of reform, the issues and processes are complex and quite a handful. The last assembly elections had seen some of these issues enter the heated polemic of electioneering. The two significant decisions the Left Front took after returning to power for the sixth time — a bill banning private tuition and the fee hike — show that the government has at last made up its mind on certain issues.

Every year, around this time, a familiar scene in most colleges is the long snaking lines of young people seeking admission in the courses offered. A casual observer might mistake it as the euphoric signs of an academic revolution, until he decides to make a second visit in the middle of the session. Desolate classrooms, often complemented by half-empty teachers’ rooms, will dash his hopes and make him see the truth. The truth, though, is self-evident. In spite of the various claims of taking higher education to the masses (our country is far behind China in literacy rates but produces far more graduates), college and university education has largely been concentrated among the middle classes, both urban and rural. With characteristic self-deception, we have turned the pursuit of higher studies on its head and made it a ritual for obtaining a degree — something that serves as a passport to employment or social and marital status.

For thousands of degree-seekers thronging the four hundred odd colleges in West Bengal, it is like a three-year excursion pre-paid by the state. In towns and suburbs, many also enrol at private institutes offering expensive computer or other vocational courses. A large number of science freshers take their college enrolment as a convenient breather before the next joint entrance examination. The result: desolate classrooms and half-empty teachers’ rooms, and a flourishing industry in private tuition.

Here one might point out the teachers’ share in the rot that has crept into the system. Are desolate classrooms necessarily the cause of half-empty teachers’ rooms, or is it the other way round? Without getting into a chicken-and-egg puzzle, or indulging in public flaying that teachers of late have been subjected to, it can be argued that in recent years teaching as a profession has been undergoing a fundamental change. Caught between the contradictory pulls of profession and vocation, between socialistic values and market philosophy, teachers as a community are hard put to redefine their role in the workplace and society.

In August 1998, when around five lakh college and university teachers all over India went on a ceasework demanding enhanced pay, an intriguing question that reverberated all across the media and the public mind was: “What do teachers want? Respect or money?” The fact that “respect” and “money” had ceased to be incompatible in post-Gandhian India was borne out by the teachers who continued their agitation for 28 days. They refused to remain frumpy curators of old social values and wanted to be treated as professionals, with all the rights and dignity that it entailed.

If some of the recent orders and directives are any indication, the authorities too seem to have begun to treat them that way, though not in the desired manner. Orders relating to work culture and duty hours that are circulating in various government departments have begun to find their way into colleges and universities. Unfortunately, that hasn’t done much towards solving the problems that are plaguing the system. It cannot, because the malady lies elsewhere.

When the teachers were agitating for the implementation of some of the UGC’s recommendations, including enhanced payscales, they opposed in their charter of demands one key suggestion made by the commission: evaluation of the teachers’ performances by their students. Although the UGC’s suggestions in this regard have not been very specific or coherent, some form of students’ assessments has been in place in many Western universities.

But here the sceptics have their points. Conditioned in an authoritative, non-interactive set-up at school level, grappling with outmoded syllabi and an examination system that encourages rote learning, how can the students play the roles of evaluators? The general academic atmosphere being far from ideal, they argue, it might lead to a dicey situation.

But with privatization and self-financing increasingly becoming the buzz-phrases on our campuses, such arguments are fast losing ground. With a hike in fees, students are taking on the role of consumers of the services which teachers, as professionals, are providing them. The same market principle that brought the once-hallowed medical profession within the ambit of the Consumers’ Protection Act, can be applied here with equal relevance. Private coaching centres are a perfect example of this. Here the same students and teachers, who leave behind desolate classrooms and half-empty staff rooms, become models of punctuality and discipline.

Perhaps raising tuition fees is addressing one half of the problem; the other half lies in bringing in some form of students’ assessment of the teachers’ performances. But then, giving a customer-provider profile to the student-teacher relation has perilous consequences. Market philosophy is notoriously myopic, while educational policy-makers need broad visions. Raising tuition fees is a pragmatic move and not the abdication of state’s duties to its people. Letting the market play the role of arbiter in all matters of education is one.


Many political leaders and commentators are of the opinion that we have now entered the age of coalition government, and.it has been said that the days of one-party rule ended with the Congress’s representation in the Lok Sabha.This view is one of expectation rather than of despair.

It was believed that a coalition would enable the true representation of the social forces that had emerged in the political scene from the days of independence. It would embody federalism, the basis of our polity, in a more effective way, resulting in the emergence of a better democracy.

More than two decades have passed since the coalition experiment was embarked upon, with Jayaprakash Narayan cobbling together the Janata Party in 1977, inorder to defeat the Congress and provide an alternative form of governance. It was basically an assemblage of anti-Congress parties, supported by the left from outside. However, the coalition collapsed within months because of Indira Gandhi’s spirited campaign against it, although the lack of internal cohesion was also a major cause for this downfall.

The failure of anti-Congressism to take root, especially in the northern and eastern parts of India, can be seen as another deterrent to Narayan’s 1977 coalition experiment. But, in the west and south, Indira Gandhi had won the electoral mandate, a fact which is usually overlooked. The Congress was seen not merely as a party which led the freedom struggle, but as a party which had provided efficient leadership, and was pushing the country forward.

No alternatives

It was not so much that there was no alternative to the Congress, as that the masses were not seeking one. They wanted the other parties to put constant pressure on the Congress, which in turn would ensure that it carried out their programmes and duties well. Unfortunately, there were few leaders such as Indira Gandhi and communist stalwarts like P. C. Joshi and S.A. Dange who saw things in this way. Most Congress leaders ensured that no alternative to their party came up either at the state or at the all-India level. Besides, they didn’t want challenges to emerge either from outside or within it. But the situation did not go beyond control because of the history of their tradition along with the brilliant leadership provided by Indira Gandhi.

Although the communists had an all-India vision, most of them were keen on acquiring power for the party and saw this as their main obstacle. Moreover, despite tall claims of armed revolution, they realized that the path to power was through the winning of seats in elections. This is best exemplified by the Left Front government in West Bengal which is yet to provide a theoretical or programmatic explanation for this. They followed it up by supporting the coalition government headed by Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral.

Ending in a fiasco

This was meant to ward off the Bharatiya Janata Party and to keep the Congress at bay. Even after the experiments ended in a fiasco, the same orientation was pursued in the form of the “equidistant” People’s Front, which placed them at the mercy of such leaders as Mulayam Singh Yadav and J. Jayalalitha.

These subjective aberrations and other important causes for the failure of the coalition experiment are seen in what is happening to the National Democratic Alliance. It remains in power, though shakily, only because most of the leaders of the BJP, and practically all the allies, have only one objective — to personally profit by being in power. Nevertheless, it is not cupidity which is pulling the NDA apart. Coalitions founder because they can never entirely represent the nation and the people of India. If the left, the regional and sectarian or caste-based parties have not separately managed to be an alternative to the Congress then forming a coalition would not work either.

This leaves us with the Congress. And it is in a sorry state not because of any deficiency in its ideology or programme, but because of its leaders’ lack of faith in their own party. Thus, the quality of leadership is crucial to the survival of the party. If the Congress can regain its original strength, it can once again be an indispensable leading force in a national system of governance.



Unnerving silence

Sir— At a loss for words? The president’s speech on the eve of Independence Day was surprisingly free of all fireworks this year. Not unnaturally, this has raised eyebrows (“President opts for eloquent silence”, Aug 15). Why should the president, who mocked the Central government’s over-reaction to the American president’s visit, criticized unabashedly the politician-criminal nexus, refused to be party to the Centre’s desire to impose president’s rule in certain states, suddenly fall silent when financial scandals are taking place under the government’s aegis, and the talks with Pakistan fail? Is K.R. Narayanan getting used to the comforts of his office? Having criticized the government for the past few years, has he suddenly realized that speaking up against the political order would imperil the extension of another term at Rashtrapati Bhavan? Even if it is accepted that the president does not wish to endanger the present government by his barbed speeches, why did he choose to forget the suffering middle classes while talking of the poor?
Yours faithfully,
Varsha Umedhkar, via email

Blood down the slopes

Sir — The editorial, “Valley of fear” (Aug 10), makes it clear that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is rapidly deteriorating. Although the government action following the recent massacre at the Jammu station — sending home ministry officials to the site, imposition of curfew, tightening of security measures, declaration of compensation — as also the action of the opposition, which staged a walkout, should be appreciated, the attitude to the situation needs to be more pragmatic. For one, the opposition has to realize that creating pandemonium in the house will lead to nothing.

Russia had unhesitatingly put down the Chechen rebels despite warning from the United States. Both China and Israel deal with insurgents from Taiwan and Palestine with an iron hand. It is this iron will which is absent in India. While Islamic fundamentalism spreads its tentacles from Kashmir to the South, Indian politicians are busy mouthing inanities in Parliament. If parliamentarians have not collectively branded Pakistan as a terrorist neighbour, it is because they are afraid it will hurt the sentiments of the minority community here. India has two options before it: either to begin a military operation against Pakistan or imitate Pakistan’s doublespeak.

Yours faithfully,
Tapan Kanti Nandy, Barasat

Sir — The Union home minister, L.K. Advani, is reportedly toying with the idea of imposing another version of the infamous Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. This will apparently help the government combat terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. There is no doubt that after the recent escalation of violence in the state, Advani is under tremendous pressure from the opposition. But the unhappy memory of TADA is still fresh in the minds of people. The introduction of the law might help separate wheat from chaff, but in the process, several innocent people will once again be found languishing in jails with their futures uncertain. Besides, Advani should make sure he does his homework properly this time, unlike in the Northeast where the ceasefire had to be reconsidered.

Yours faithfully,
Harmeet Singh Chawla, Haldia

Sir — Ambereen Ali Shah seems to champion the cause of Muslims in, “Capital hotels shut door on Kashmiris” (Aug 12). I am sure Shah appreciates the security concerns of the Delhi administration. It is amazing to see her confuse Islamic militants with Kashmiri locals when she says “owners of these hotels…have been warned by Delhi police not to put up ‘foreigners’ (read Kashmiris)”. She should know that hired mercenaries can come from anywhere in the Islamic world, not Kashmir alone. In the war between Muslims and non-Muslims, only battlefields change, whether it be in Kosovo, Kashmir, Chechnya, west Asia or East Timor.

Yours faithfully,
Moitrayee Chakraborty, Calcutta

Sir — I applaud L.K. Advani for his recent stand on Jammu and Kashmir. He has ensured that the Border Security Force and other military and paramilitary forces are granted greater powers by the government to maintain law and order in the state. The killing of civilians at Jammu station is another brazen display of the insurgents’ resolve to succeed through violence. It is time to allow other Indians to settle in Kashmir. This will ensure a degree of stability.

Yours faithfully,
J. Ganguly, Los Angeles

Sir — Why doesn’t the ruling party realize that the regular killing of innocent Kashmiris by the security forces only erodes the Kashmiri confidence in the Indian government?

Yours faithfully,
Vijay Jan, Calcutta

Sir — Officially, Azad Kashmir is not a part of Pakistan. The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front and other organizations are fighting for freedom both from the Indian and the Pakistan governments. India continues to deny the people the right of self-determination. Indian security forces are violating human rights in the name of counter-insurgency operations. Militants are not criminals. They are fighting for a cause. Both India and Pakistan are responsible for the deaths of 80,000 people during the last 12 years in the valley. A plebiscite becomes indispensable in this situation.

Yours faithfully,
Rudra Sen, Calcutta

Mission destruction

Sir — The report, “Monks defy diktat on teachers” (Aug. 7), says that the Ramakrishna Mission authorities have refused to follow government orders on the recruitment of teachers. I think that the government has a right to expect RKM schools to be accountable to it for the financial assistance they receive. The accountability, however, should be limited to the results produced by these schools. The government’s supervisory role should not manifest itself in the form of diktats to the schools with regard to their recruitment policies.

Most schools in West Bengal recruit teachers through the school service commission. The quality of such teachers usually leaves a lot to be desired. This is because the recruitment policy of the government is often affected by political considerations. Bad students of today make for bad teachers tomorrow, who in turn produce bad students.

The financial assistance provided by the government to these schools comes from the taxpayer. It is the quality of education provided by these RKM schools that matters. Instead, the government has concentrated on something very different. If the government exercises its powers indiscriminately, there will be very few schools left in the state which will provide quality education.

Yours faithfully,
A. Bagchi, Denver

Sir — The new strictures of the state education department aimed at the RKM schools demand that they bring their teachers within the ambit of the rules of the school service commission. The department argues that since these schools are run on government aid, they cannot claim privileged status.

The RKM authorities have rightly seen this as interference in its management. Recruits from the school service commission are more amenable to government control. So RKM can expect more leftist intervention. The mission should on no account hand over control of the schools to the government. It will leave a permanent scar on the educational setup in this state.

Yours faithfully,
S. Majumdar, Sonarpur

Letters to the editor should be sent to:

The Telegraph
6 Prafulla Sarkar Street
Calcutta 700 001
Email: [email protected]
Readers in the Northeast can write to:
Third Floor, Godrej Building,
G.S. Road, Ulubari, Guwahati 781007

Maintained by Web Development Company