Custom Search Engine - Scans Selected News Sites


Saturday, 28 January 2012

From Today's Papers - 28 Jan 2012
Army Chief’s Age Row-Part 5
A matter of Honour vs Propriety
The General gives his ‘word’
By Raj Chengappa Editor-in-Chief
Personal and Confidential:
From: Lt Gen VK Singh, GoC, HQ 2 Corp,
To: Lt Gen PR Gangadharan,
Military Secretary, IHQ of MoD (Army)
Dated 31 Jan 2008.
Dear General,
1. Ref Para 5 and 6 of your letter No 36808/DO/MS-8B dt 21 Jan 08.
2. Date as mentioned is accepted, Regards, Yours’ sincerely, signed VK Singh.

This letter that General Vijay Kumar Singh, Chief of Army Staff, wrote four years ago is being regarded as an important piece of evidence by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) when the General’s writ petition challenging the Union of India order over the matter of his correct date of birth comes up for hearing in the Supreme Court. The letter came after a series of exchanges between the MoD, Gangadharan, the then Military Secretary (MS) and Singh, who was then a Lieutenant General and General Officer Commanding of the 2 Corps stationed in Ambala.
Part 4 of The Tribune series on the messy row over the Army Chief’s age, talked of how Singh acquiesced under pressure to accept his date of birth as 10 Mary 1950 instead of 10 May 1951. This was after Bimal Julka, Joint Secretary (G/Air), MoD, in his letter of 21 January 2008, warned the Army HQ that MoD would reconsider its proposal to promote him as Army Commander if he persisted with “an attitude apparently questionable and not reflective of the qualities expected from any Army Commander.” This came after Singh reopened the issue of his date of birth in December 2007, having remained silent for more than a year after his promotion as Corps Commander.

It was in April 2006 that the MoD, when it received a proposal from Army HQ to promote Singh from a Major General to Lieutenant General, had for the first time pointed out that while his Annual Confidential Records (ACRs) showed 10 May 1951 as his date of birth, in another Army record it was entered as 10 May 1950. With the Army HQ promising the MoD that it would sort out the issue, Singh got his promotion and was posted to the 2 Corps in June 2006.

Soon after, Lt Gen Richard Khare, the then MS, in his letter of 21 August 2006 formally rejected his plea to have his date of birth corrected in the records citing mainly an MoD rule that no such change could be considered after a lapse of two years of an officer being commissioned in the armed forces.

However, with Singh raking up his date of birth issue again, Julka sent out a warning to Army HQ in January 2008 that the MoD would reconsider the proposal to promote him as Army Commander. That triggered a flurry of signals from Army HQ to Singh at Ambala to get him to give a written commitment that he accepted his date of birth as 10 May 1950.

First, PR Gangadharan, the MS, in a letter on 21 January 2008, formally rejected his plea to reconcile his date of birth in the MS record which had it as 10 May 1950 and the AG’s Branch which had it as 10 May 1951. Gangadharan’s six paragraph letter detailed the reasons as to why his request was being turned down with Para 5 stating “In view of the above, we are constrained to maintain your official date of birth as 10 May 1950 and the same may kindly be reflected in all your records/documents. The AG’s Branch is being accordingly intimated to amend the records being maintained by them.” And Para 6 asked Singh to, “Please acknowledge and confirm acceptance.”

After a telephonic conversation with Deepak Kapoor, the then Chief of Army Staff (COAS), who apparently briefed him about the consequences if he remained adamant about having his date of birth changed, Singh signaled on 24 January 2008, “ whatever decision taken in the org. interest is acceptable to me.”

Army HQ was not satisfied with such a vague commitment. So within hours of receiving Singh’s cable, Maj Gen K. Purshotam, the Deputy (MS)X, sent a terse cable stating, “response vide ibid sig. not in conformity with response asked for vide para 5 and 6 of letter dt 21 Jan 2008. If reply not recd by 1000 hrs on 25 Jan 08 action deemed appropriate will be taken.”

While referring to this cable, Singh in his statutory complaint to the MoD, stated that, “This was done as the COAS had ordered me during the course of his discussion to only say/write that I accept the date as desired by MS Branch. He did not want me to write that this acceptance was due to his order to me.”

The MS Branch though was busy defending Singh to prevent the MoD from rejecting his promotion. Gangadharan, the MS wrote to Julka on 25 January 2008 that, “the officer (VK Singh) did not have any malafide intention in continuing to write his date of birth as 10 May 1951.”

And that, “It is the considered view of this HQ that the officer is not blameworthy. He has all the attributes and credentials and deserves to be considered for the appointment of GOC-in-C/HQ as already recommended…this has the approval of COAS."

Julka then called for a detailed inquiry, “to find out the correct date of birth of the officer immediately in consultation with the AG’s Branch.” AG’s Branch came back with an ambiguous reply on 30 January 2008 for the first time indicating that within the AG directorates itself two sets of dates were being maintained. The note by Lt Gen K. R. Rao, DG (MP and PS) in the AG’s Branch, stated that while the Manpower Planning (MP) Directorate had Singh's date of birth as 10 May 1951, the Recruiting Directorate had it as 10 May 1950.

Forcing his hand

The AG's Branch ambiguous reply appears to have been communicated to Singh who wrote a letter on the same day now stating, “in accordance with the discussion of date, I will mention the date of birth as directed.” Gangadharan promptly wrote to Julka informing him that after, “a detailed examination in consultation with AG's branch” he gave reasons why 10 May 1950 should remain as the date of birth and ending that “the officer has now again affirmed that his date of birth would be indicated as 10 May 1950.” He reiterated that Singh had “no malafide intention.”

But apparently Julka in consultation with the then Defence Secretary Vijay Singh was unconvinced with the wordings of Singh's commitment to “mention the date of birth as directed.” That was communicated to Singh by Army HQ. He reluctantly wrote back on 31 January 2008, “Date as mentioned is accepted.” His promotion to the rank of Army Commander was then approved and he was appointed GOC-in-C, Eastern Command on 1 March 2008.

In his statutory complaint to the MoD of 26 August 2011, Singh gives the reasons why he finally acceded, stating, “In the highest traditions of the Indian army, I had no option but to comply with the orders and command of my superior officer as also assurances of my superior officer with the hope that he would bring the issue to a logical and ethical conclusion by accepting facts.”

This would not be the only time that he would put down in writing that he had accepted his date of birth as 1950. It would happen again just before he was appointed as Chief of Army Staff. But not before Singh would revive the issue of having his date of birth “reconciled” in the Army records.

Raising it again

On 1 July, 2008, he wrote a personal letter to Kapoor, stating, “I have mulled over the entire handling of the issue in great detail. I must also confess to my Chief that I have been greatly hurt and pained by the aspersions cast on my integrity and military reputation, which we all jealously guard.” He went into details as to why he thought the verification process with regard to his date of birth was faulty. He ended by stating, “I would humbly request my Chief that necessary justice must be done and the damage to my integrity must be taken care of.”

With Kapoor apparently not responding, on 25 December 2008, he wrote to Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash, the then Military Secretary, stating, “My dear Avadesh, …Please let me know the procedure and methodology followed by MS Branch for verification of date of birth as also how my date of my birth has been determined by MS Branch.”

On 15 January 2009, Prakash gave a detailed reply outlining the procedure and informing why his date had finally been determined as 10 May 1950. Singh was back with another letter on 11 February 2009 punching holes in Prakash’s argument. On 20 March 2009, Singh sent another letter to Prakash enclosing correspondence with the UPSC over correction of his date of birth and stating that his commission was provisional till he submitted his matriculation certificate.

Prakash’s reply of 13 April 2009 is to the point and states “that your commissioning was not provisional for any reason.” He then pointed out, “vied your letter of 31 January 2008, date of birth ie 10 May 1950 has been accepted by you. Therefore, this issue stands closed.”

Quest to become Chief

On August 20, 2009, the MS Branch issued a notice of retirement to Singh informing him that he would retire on 31 May 2010 on attaining the compulsory retirement age for Lieutenant Generals at 60. That age was calculated on the basis of his date of birth being 10 May 1950. MoD pointed out in its order of December 2011 that there is ‘no record to show that this notice was contested” by Singh after that.

By October, with Deepak Kapoor retiring on March 31, 2010, as the senior most ranking Lieutenant General, Singh is in the zone of consideration to succeed him as COAS. His bio-data is forwarded by the Deputy MS, Eastern Command, to the Army HQ on 23 October, 2009 indicating that his date of birth as 10 May, 1950. With MoD clearly upset with Singh raking up the age issue again there are indications that it may come in the way of him being appointed as the next Chief of Army Staff.

On 12 November 2009, Singh suo moto wrote to Deepak Kapoor, stating,

“My dear Chief,

1. I have learnt of some misgivings and doubts being raised on my commitment given on my date of birth as per your directions. You are well aware that I have not gone back on this commitment.

2. In July'08 when I wrote to you to seek justice and elaboration of MS Branch constraints, you had told me that this case is closed and will not be discussed. I have taken your directions in letter and spirit. My subsequent correspondence with the MS Branch has been on the verification process which I wanted to know for my own satisfaction. After the MS wrote saying that this function is of AG Branch, I have treated this issue as closed. I am sure you are well aware of these facts.

3. I once again reiterate my commitment to you stands and any doubt or misgivings need to be dispelled.

With best regards, Your sincerely, Signed VK Singh.”

This would be the second time that Singh would put on record that he regarded the date of birth “issue as closed” even averring that, “ that I have not gone back on this commitment. “ In his statutory complaint to the MoD of August 2011, Singh maintained that, “This letter in no way was an acceptance of any kind and was written as part of culmination of my correspondence with the MS Branch.” A stand he reiterated in his writ petition.

The MoD though in its order of 30 December 2011 rejecting Singh's statutory complaint, pointed out, “The commitment was given not only to the then COAS but separately to the Government through the Defence Secretary by way of a NOO (Not on Original) Endorsement.” Essentially it meant that he had marked a copy to the Defence Secretary without indicating it in his letter to Kapoor.

The MoD further pointed out, “ While processing the selection of the next COAS this ibid letter was placed before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet and it was mentioned that the complainant had accepted his date of birth as 10 May 1950… the position now to be taken by complainant of distancing himself from this commitment is, therefore, not tenable.”

Three commitments

The MoD then observed, “Thus at three stages ie at the time of his appointment as Corps Commander in 2006, Army Commander in 2008 and COAS in 2009-10, Army HQ confirmed his date of birth as 10 May, 1950. The complainant had also accepted this as his date of birth in 2008 and 2009.”

If the MoD thought the matter would rest after Singh had given his “commitment” it would be mistaken. For not long after he was appointed as Chief of Army Staff on
31 March 2010, General Vijay Kumar Singh would bring the issue of his date of birth on centre-stage again.
Naval officers in dock for online posts, face axe

New Delhi, January 27
Being active on social networking sites like Facebook and Orkut has landed four Indian Navy officers in trouble after they gave away critical service information and confidential matters, resulting in an official probe holding them blameworthy and fit to be punished. A Navy Board of Inquiry (BoI) has recommended dismissal of two of the four senior officers indicted by it for allegedly possessing and leaking classified information through networking sites.

The board in its investigations against four Commander-rank officers from the Technical Branch found that information leaked by two of them was sensitive in nature and recommended their dismissal from service. Sources said Naval intelligence personnel had found classified information in one officer's computer which led them to the remaining three officers.

They, however, said the board has ruled out the possibility of an espionage angle in the case.

The Navy had ordered the inquiry against the four officers after it found that they were allegedly possessing classified information on their personal computers. They were also found to be allegedly sharing the information on social networking websites such as Facebook, which could have been seen by foreign nationals also. — PTI
Pakistan’s insecure N-assets
Global community must shed its inertia
by Rajiv Nayan

On January 1 this year, as part of their agreement, India and Pakistan exchanged the lists of their nuclear facilities — an annual exercise going on for some time. Before that, the two countries held a meeting to discuss conventional and nuclear confidence-building measures (CBMs). A section of the media reported that among other issues, the two neighbours discussed the possibility of cooperation on nuclear safety. This could be an issue for the countries which are running nuclear facilities, but for Pakistan, nuclear safety is a marginal issue.

What is the real nuclear issue in Pakistan? The real issue is the security of the Pakistani nuclear assets. These assets are in both military and civil nuclear energy sectors. The international community is talking about ‘fatwa for fissions’. The Pakistani nuclear establishment is expanding its arsenals. The plutonium route has seemingly been added to the existing enriched uranium route. Pakistan is adding facilities for reprocessing and spent fuel generation. 

The increase of the Pakistani nuclear stockpile is making the international community anxious. Time and again, official statements from different countries come and reports of different academic centres underscore that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals are under danger. Some believe and express that Al-Qaida operatives may lay their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

As the world is reluctant to believe that the Pakistan authorities did not know about the presence of Osama in Pakistan, it is also not ready to accept that Pakistani nuclear scientists and its army, which is really controlling nuclear weapons, had no connection with Osama’s terror network. A section of the international community does point to the complicity of a section of the Pakistani atomic establishment. For more than a decade, reports are coming about the association of Pakistani scientists and a section of the army with jihadis. Some sympathetic Western writings have also acknowledged that the physics departments and the army of Pakistan are infected.

However, the pre-dominant reaction in the international community after Operation Geronimo is that Pakistan is worrying only about the security of its nuclear arsenals assuming that the Pakistani nuclear establishment would not cooperate with Al-Qaida. It just asks some explanation about the security of its nuclear weapons and materials. One of the US Senators, Robert Casey, said that the entire Osama episode demonstrates an “apparent incompetence” of the Pakistan government. He also said that it “does not inspire confidence in the ability of Pakistan’s governing or security institutions to oversee their nuclear weapons programme.” The same thinking is emanating from the academic community.  

A Harvard University scholar, Olli Heinonen, who earlier worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency and with A. Q. Khan and the Pakistani proliferation network for long, gave a statement: “There is very little assurance that nuclear materials and facilities are fully under (Pakistani) government control.”  He advocated technology and security assurance to Pakistan but wanted Islamabad to “stop production of fissile material for military purposes, commit to a moratorium on nuclear testing and provide full disclosure of nuclear proliferation activities involving Iran, Libya, North Korea and Syria.” 

Pakistani nuclear warheads are dispersed so that any Indian attack does not destroy the complete stockpile. Some reports denote that Pakistani warheads are stored deep inside the country to escape any attack. The Osama episode clearly shows that Al-Qaida can reach everywhere, even deep inside the country. The dispersed nuclear arsenals are not only vulnerable to falling in wrong hands but also making the gathering of intelligence a complicated affair for the US. 

Even the supporters of the idea that the Pakistani nuclear stockpile is well protected by the professional Pakistan Army would admit the possibility of Al-Qaida infiltration at the mid-level. Corruption is yet another channel of terrorists’ entry into Pakistan’s nuclear storage. Nuclear materials may be another weak area. The uranium mine at Dera Ghazi Khan has been closed down and other such mines are in jihadi-dominated areas. More importantly, questions about the security of the Pakistani nuclear assets were raised by the country’s former Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi also.

Encouraged by Operation Geronimo, some analysts in the US are exploring the possibility of ‘snatch and run’ operation for Pakistani nuclear weapons. Some informal briefings from the defence department indicate that the Pentagon has a plan to undertake this kind of an exercise. It seems the US is not undertaking this exercise because it may not have complete intelligence, though it is being hinted that it may go in for this course in the event of ‘extremists’ coup’. 

What the US and the world should do is to come out of inertia, which allowed Osama to live in Pakistan and the Al-Qaida network to operate from the Pakistani soil. The repeated solution in technological, security and financial assistance would not improve the situation as the Osama case demonstrates. Instead, it would further complicate the matter. Pakistan will continue to blackmail the world. The unorthodox US approach demonstrated in capturing Osama should be extended to the nuclear realm as well. 

The US needs to wake up and act. So does India. Admittedly, in the last couple of years, the Indian government along with its strategic community has begun to talk about the global danger posed by the Pakistani nuclear weapons stockpile. India may have to go beyond that. The international community is cognizant of the danger from the Pakistan nuclear stockpile. India has to keep it alerted. New Delhi may also have to sharpen its diplomatic skills and reach out to the countries which are still hesitant to take on Pakistan. In international forums, India should side with the Western world to ensure the security of the Pakistani nuclear assets. Apparently, China is scuttling the move to target Pakistan on nuclear security matters.  

The Nuclear Security Summit Process is active, and the second summit will take place in Seoul on March 26-27. The IAEA has also developed plans for nuclear security. Both forums are engaging Pakistan, though no one is sure of the efficacy of the two systems. India should not become a captive to its largely archaic Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) philosophy and allow the bailout for Pakistan.

During the Washington NSS, India announced the setting up of a global centre of excellence — the Global Center for Nuclear Energy Partnership. India should take the opportunity and showcase the global centre and engage Pakistan in it as well. However, it should continue to search for a new and innovative mechanism in cooperation with the concerned members of the international community to secure Pakistan’s nuclear assets.

The writer is Senior Research Associate, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
NDA commandant awarded Bar to AVSM
Lt Gen Jatinder Singh, Commandant of National Defence Academy, has been awarded Bar to AVSM (Ati Vishisht Seva Medal) in recognition of his devotion to duty and distinguished service. The award was declared on the eve of the Republic Day.

The General is a specialist in mechanised operations and counter insurgency and took over as the Commandant of NDA on January 1, 2011. He is an alumnus of the Sainik School Kazhakootam, National Defence Academy 42nd Course, Juliet’ Squadron, and was commissioned into the prestigious 1 Guards (2 Punjab) regiment of the Indian Army on June 13, 1973. He is a also a graduate of the Defence Services Staff College, Wellington and Higher Command Course (Air) at College of Air Warfare, Secunderabad. The General was also awarded the Chief of Army Staff Commendation in 2002, the Sena Medal in 2003 and the AVSM in 2008 a press release issued by the NDA said.
Lieutenant, did you die in vain?
I learnt about your demise from the ticker tape on one of the news channels. It was a big encounter and a very fierce one at that. A feeling of deep sadness enveloped me as I reflected on your youth which had been sacrificed in the Gurez sector in the line of duty.

What does your death mean?

You were too young to die, far too young! For whom and for what did you die then? This question haunted me last night and I will attempt to answer you.

You were probably from a village or a small town of India. You were perhaps the son of an army officer or JCO, or from an urban or rural civilian background. You could not be from one of the big cities where iron has entered the soul of our youth and where the only driving motivator is quest for money in the surreal environment of the corporate world.

Why did you join the army? Of course to get a job. But then that is over simplifying the question. You were possibly motivated by the traditions in your family and clan, you were probably enthused by the sight of your elder brothers, uncles or other men from your community in uniform, you were perhaps enchanted by the cantonment life where you may have spent your growing years.

On your last journey, you would not have got the adulation from the government that a martyred soldier gets in the US. Your name will not be read out in any obituary reference in Parliament, as is done in the UK for all soldiers who fall in combat in the line of duty. Your name will not be etched on any national memorial because we do not have one!

Symbolically you will become the Unknown Soldier for the nation, for whom the flame burns at India Gate, but your name will not be etched there. The names engraved on that monument are of the soldiers who died fighting for the British Indian Army [ Images ] and not those who have made the supreme sacrifice for Independent India! Can it get more ironic?

But do not despair, Lieutenant. Your comrades will do you proud! The senior-most officer would have led the homage that your brother officers will pay you before you left the Valley of Kashmir one last time. Your unit representatives must have escorted your body home. You would have been carried to the funeral pyre draped in the flag for which you died fighting.

The darkened and tearful eyes of your grief-stricken mother and the stoic figure of your father, benumbed by the enormity of this tragedy, will move even the most cynical.

I do not know Lieutenant at what stage of the encounter you fell, mortally wounded. But the fact that you were there on the lonely vigil across the Line of Control [ Images ] in Gurez, is enough to vouch for your valour. Your unit and formation commanders will see to it that you get the gallantry award which you so richly deserve. In due time your father or your mother will be presented the medal and parchment of your gallantry, which will be framed and find pride of place in your home.

Time will dull the bitterness of this tragic parting, which right now is the only feeling that engulfs your parents and siblings in its enormity.

Lieutenant you were lucky. You did not live long enough to get married and leave behind a grieving widow. You did not live long enough to have children. For when they would have come of age you would have seen in them a cynicism towards the army for which you died.

You will not see a young son who thinks his father is a hero and wants to follow his footsteps in joining the army only to be harshly dissuaded by his mother (or father) from following a profession which ranks so low for the youth of our country.

You were lucky not to serve long enough to see the army getting belittled. You did not live long enough to see the utter indifference and disdain for the army. Like you, a large number of valiant soldiers laid down their lives on the rocky heights of Kargil [ Images ], fighting against self-imposed odds. Today it is not even felt fit to publicly commemorate the anniversary of that stupendous military victory in a befitting manner, a war won by the blood of young men.

But do not despair Lieutenant. Your name will be etched for posterity in the annals of your Unit and your Regiment. A silver trophy with your name inscribed on it, will grace the centre table of the Unit mess. You will also find your name in the unit Quarter Guard, where annual homage will also be paid to you. The war memorials at the Formation HQ where you served and your Regimental Centre will proudly display your name for eternity.

If you joined the Army through the NDA, your name will be written in the Hut of Remembrance through which each cadet will pass, paying homage before his Passing Out Parade.

There will be an obituary reference to you from your comrades in the papers, which will be flipped over by most but which will be read in detail by people who have a connect with those who wear or wore the uniform.

As your parents head into the evening of their life, memories of your valour will be their most precious possession. When ever your mother will think of you her eyes will mist over but there will be more stars in them than you ever wore on your shoulders.

Your father may speak quietly about you but no one will miss the swell of pride in his chest. For your siblings you will always remain the real hero, and for that matter even for your community and village. A school or a road may well be named after you and you will become a part of the local folklore.

You died Lieutenant, because when the test came, you decided that you could not let down your family, your clan and your comrades, who always expected, without ever saying so, to do your duty. You, Lieutenant, have done more than your duty and made your memory their hallowed possession.

Lieutenant you did not die in vain!
Indian Army draws LoC on internet use for officers
While the world of internet and social networking sites is being increasingly by citizens, companies, or even the governments across the globe, the Indian Armed Forces are bracing against cyber attacks, cyber honey traps after several incidents of possible hacking and honey trapping came to light.
A new policy on use of social networking sites and internet is now being implemented. It is said that cyber-attacks have the ability to cripple a nation's ability to defend itself. In view of this, the Indian Army [ Images ] is actively bracing itself to deal with even the faintest cyber-attack -- direct or indirect.

Very recently it has been found that Facebook and Orkut profiles of several officers were hacked and infused with Trojans.

A preliminary investigation has also revealed that the hackers, suspected to be from Pakistan or China, would 'make friends' with other members on the friend list of the officer whose profile has been originally hacked.

After a chatting with the 'friend' of the officers, via Facebook chat, the hacker (who is pretending to be the officer) suggests that he has found an interesting online application which helps in preparing power point presentations very easily which in turn help in studying and official presentation before the commanders.

The hacker then sends a link. On clicking the link, system of the target officer hangs and the entire data gets wiped out or infused with a virus.

After several such incidents were reported, the officials have been instructed to use internet and social networking sites strictly and only for personal use. A police letter to this effect has been drawn out by the director general of military intelligence with detailed instructions on use of internet.

The letter, accessed by, states, "As a policy, use of internet through email and social networks is permitted only for private use, and under no circumstances will the personnel disclose their official identity on the internet in any form whatsoever."

Service personnel have been refrained from uploading any information pertaining to their ranks, units or formations, appointment, place of duty or place of movement, contact numbers, pictures in uniform or with backgrounds depicting any defence establishment.

Officers have also been asked to not comment on matters related to the policies or activities of the Indian Defence Services, Ministry of Defence and the government.

One of the other restrictions is forwarding of chain mails pertaining to the armed forces to avoid addresses being given away by way of bulk mails.

Any groups such as NDA 53, SODE97, DSSC65, formed by any course, batch, or unit have been asked to be deleted with immediate effect.

Use of email IDs which give out any direct or indirect hint of affiliation with the forces have also been banned.

Internet usage and social networking is becoming an intrinsic element of personal lifestyles and is emerging as a major tool for exchange of information.

While in the past, a number of guidelines have been issued on the use of internet and social networking sites, they have not been implemented in the desired manner, leading to a large number of cases of breaches in security of information.

Four commander level officers of the Indian Navy are already facing a full-fledged inquiry for using online networks to share sensitive information such as location of ships, frequency and location of patrolling, nature of ammo on board etc.

While defence personnel are not provided with internet connections in their official establishments, an intranet connection is used by the officers for official communication.

No comments:

Post a Comment


Mail your comments, suggestions and ideas to me

Template created by Rohit Agarwal