Disaffection and Patriotism


Many governments think that if a citizen dissents – meaning if he or she displays disagreement with some policies of the government – then, he or she is an anti-national, a person who is not to be regarded as a true patriot. He or she needs to be monitored for potential anti-government activities.

Nothing is further from the truth.

A government of the day does not have the right to designate an individual who disagrees with its policies as someone against the country itself. That is a totally ridiculous assertion of a non-fact. Every individual has an absolute right, at least in a democracy, to have his or her own opinion or views on a specific subject or government policy, and also to express the same. Governments do get agitated when the individual concerned is a thinker of repute, a politician of some standing, or an influential celebrity with a big following. And they get angry if such individuals use colourful adjectives or choice epithets to describe their opinions or views.

Nevertheless, governments who are mature enough to take in criticisms and digest the same, will realize that their own standing improves in the eyes of common citizens, who would develop serious concerns if the response of their government is not appropriate. Governments can always reserve the right to a suitable response, but cannot colour their response or action with a foregone judgement against public interest.There will always be a significant, and sometimes influential, section of the society which is going to disagree – that does not make them anti-national in any manner. This is normal human behaviour, especially in societies where there are established democratic institutions. Sometimes, I tend to wonder at the courage of such individuals who ignore potential retributions for their views.

The very common people, or the proletariat as we used to call them in the past, would not dare to risk their rice bowl by holding or expressing views antagonistic to government policies. They just want to have a smooth life, and worry about their own welfare, their childrens’ future, and their retirement. More than 99% of a society is like that, and there is nothing wrong with that kind of peaceful life. Why rock the boat?

Dissenters are usually people who do not personally worry about themselves in the first place. I am talking about peaceful dissenters, and not revolutionaries here. They have a view of their society, their country and the world, which is vastly different from their own government’s views. A great example is the current protests going on for the tenth week in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong protesters demonstrate their dissension in a particularly strong and vocal manner, which is surely not compatible with the rest of that money-making society or that of their own administrative government, which reports into the Mainland China government. It is anybody’s guess as to where or when those protests will end up, and sometimes it bothers me when I imagine military boots on Hong Kong roads.

Another emerging example is the citizen protests in Moscow against President Putin and his government’s aggressive policies against opposition politicians. Russia is not a true democracy, but it is well on its way towards one from a long period of Communist Dictatorship. Hence it will be interesting to see how that people protest is being handled by the Russian government. May not end well, in my opinion, especially if the Russian government discovers that foreign elements are aiding the protests.

The Indian government is characterizing dissenters as anti-nationalists. My hope is that laws to this effect will undergo rapid change, as the Indian society is inherently democratic, vocal and expressive. The government will soon see its folly in trying to control “views” of any kind from being expressed. I am not able to understand why a government which succeeded wildly at the ballot box in May 2019 would do things not compatible with democratic expression. I hope that the Indian government will change its policies for the better as it digests its victory, the overall popular acceptance of its governance, its image on the world stage, and its permanent tagline as the biggest democracy in the world.

There should be nothing wrong with anyone expressing his or her views, in spoken or written form, and communicating a different line of thinking. The world has made progress at every step because of dissension and disaffection. If everyone toes the line of the government, the country will not benefit. Every dissenting citizen is actually a committed patriot, and the government should see him or her as such. It is critical to tap opposing views which can help the country to progress further.

In a nutshell, I am happy to stay in the midst of dissenters and learn from their differing views.

Have a great week ahead folks,

Vijay Srinivasan

11th August 2019

CEOs against Trump


You do not see many corporate CEOs speaking up against a President or Prime Minister, especially in their home country against their own government leader. There may be many reasons for this approach, even when the matter on the table involves racism. It could be just basic courtesy towards an elected leader, or simply a forced isolation away from political matters of any kind. It could even be protection of their own business from the clutches of the government, which happens in many countries when the CEO talks up against the leader of the country.

While the U.S. still remains the beacon of freedom, corporate CEOs in the U.S. have generally been circumspect when it comes to dealing with the fallout of President Trump’s tweets, which they do not, probably, consider as official government policies. They try to keep their counsel most of the time. Some of them have expressed their anguish about forced family separations at the southern border of the U.S., with very young children torn away from their parents by Immigration enforcement officials. But, I am yet to see a strong reaction to Trump’s racist tweets by corporate CEOs in the U.S.

So, it was not surprising when I saw that the CEO of Siemens, Joe Kaesar, was probably the first ever corporate CEO who called out Trump on his racist attacks against four elected representatives of the U.S. Congress. Joe Kaesar is based in Germany, though in the past he had worked in the U.S. He was totally forthright in his condemnation of the racist views emanating from the White House. I did not see a retort from President Trump however, which was unusual to say the least.

The elected representatives and elected leader of government are not “special” people: they just ran an election campaign better than their opposition. Otherwise they are just normal folks like everyone else. So, the exalted position that we place elected leaders is not warranted – what is needed, of course, is just respect for the position as such. The President of the U.S. appears to be an exalted position – but it is occupied by an average individual who won an election, who could well be defeated in the next election. However, the position of the President or the Prime Minister deserves respect by anyone and everyone.

However, this supposition does not apply in case the person occupying the respectful position of the President demeans it every other day. As we have repeatedly seen, President Trump is hell bent on demeaning the office of the President almost every day. Asking non-white elected representatives to go back to their home country is never heard of in any country. Here we are talking about 3 members of the U.S. Congress who were born in the U.S. and one who was born outside but naturalised as a citizen. Letting supporters chant “send her back” is just reprehensible, and that is exactly what Trump allowed his supporters to do – waiting for a full 13 seconds in a pause before resuming his talk. He could have expressed his deep displeasure on the chant, which he did not even attempt to do.

Corporate CEOs should be more forthcoming when it comes to addressing such socially divisive issues – especially racism. What message are they giving to their employees (mostly socially diverse, especially in the technology industries) by maintaining a studious silence? Who are they trying to please? President Trump?

Mr Joe Kaesar did the right thing – if you read his past utterances you will realize that he is a very outspoken person even on domestic German issues. If good, responsible and powerful people call out folks like Trump, then the message to the fraternity is absolutely clear – here is a leader who will defend human values at any cost – yes, even at a cost to his company’s business. Racism should not exist at all, but unfortunately it exists in almost every place on this planet. But when top leaders such as Trump rake up racist and socially very divisive issues, then it is time for all stakeholders in the U.S. society to call out that very bad behaviour publicly, irrespective of any kind of repercussions. Trump should get the message loud and clear. He should not get corporate political donations till he mends his abhorrent ways.

I salute Mr Kaesar for his clear-headed and forthright criticism of President Trump’s racist utterances. Conscientious people cannot and should not be silent at such behaviours. They should openly speak out. And control the spread of evil concept such as racism, at least in their own company or society.

Cheers, and Have a great weekend,

Vijay Srinivasan

3rd August 2019

People Power – not the right approach


Is People Power, meaning protests, demonstrations, civil disobedience and disruptions by common citizens, the right approach to dislodge elected governments?

Increasingly, we are witnessing people power protests even in democracies. Of course, it is no wonder if people protest in countries like Russia (happened yesterday in Moscow in support of opposition party leaders who could not get on to the ballot), which falls in a grey area between truly elected democracies and autocratic form of almost essentially single party governments (though apparently elected).

But it becomes challenging to define people protests in countries like Hong Kong (which is not a country but a special administrative region of China) which disrupt the normal functioning of a global financial centre, with no apparent end in sight. When such protests turn violent, then the governments have to enforce law and order.

Then you have the long-running people protests in Venezuela against the incumbent government of President Nicolas Maduro. If an elected President has to succumb to people protests, that is not a sustainable form of government, irrespective of the moral rights and wrongs facing Venezuelans. What is the guarantee such protest mechanism will not be re-used in the future to pull down a duly elected government with popular mandate? How is Venezuela going to eliminate foreign governmental influence in such a situation?

If you dial back to 2010, you would recall the “Arab Spring” – a series of protests, demonstrations and violence which spread across a series of North African and Middle Eastern countries. Only Tunisia achieved a transition to democratic form of government as a result of the Arab Spring people protests. All the other countries failed in their democratic transformation efforts, though some changes occurred in the way governance was administered.

If you dial back to some 100 years ago, you would recall the non-violent people protests organised by Mahatma Gandhi against British rule of India, which eventually succeeded in securing independence for India.

But things are very different today. Social, political and economic situations are vastly different. Social media has been instrumental in driving the Arab Spring revolution across several countries. However, what has become clear is that anti-democratic governments are not going to give up power despite people protests and in some cases, armed rebellion like in Syria. The deeply entrenched political and ruling elite will fight back against the common people, and will win the battle most of the time.

Given this kind of evolution of people power, is it any wonder that most people protests are not succeeding anymore? For unorganised people to wage a protest against the power of a government, it is essential that violence should be avoided – at least on the people side. Gandhi took the physical attacks on him by the British police valiantly as he knew that he needed to show both to the British government and to his own people that he was totally unafraid and capable of facing the police baton. He did not encourage his people to indulge in any form of violence or conflict with the police. It is only futile to expect that the government will strive to avoid violence in the face of threat to its own existence.

In my opinion, people protests are definitely futile in truly anti-democratic government run countries. In democratic countries, people protests should not be warranted at all as people have access to ballots in an election. The only situations which warrant people power are (a) liberation of a country from an occupying foreign nation; (b) serious endemic corruption in any kind of country; and, (c) lack of action by the government to implement its commitments made via election manifesto of the ruling party presented to the people during elections, leading to increased poverty and unemployment. There could be couple more situations, but in any such protests, people should totally avoid violence and should not give a basis for their governments to perpetrate official violence.

On the situation in Hong Kong, I am on the side of the government though I sympathise with the protesters, especially the students. Protesters cannot impose pre-conditions for negotiations, which we have seen are mostly deal-breakers.

So, in a nutshell, people power is not a good idea as it leads to quick deterioration in civil society and economy, and brings a nation to its knees. Is that something that the people desire? I am not sure.

Cheers, and have a good week ahead,

Vijay Srinivasan

28th July 2019

Shortcuts in Life


In the quest for achieving something, or for just jumping the queue ahead of other clueless folks, people take shortcuts in their daily lives. They do this almost unconsciously, as they believe sincerely that they ought to be rightfully ahead of others. They do think that they deserve the unique place that they seek to usurp intheir pursuit of their goals in their lives, though these goals might be just steps on the way to accomplishing something bigger.

Think about it, how many times have you seen someone behind you in the queue for a movie or at an airline check-in counter, gets pulled to a spot ahead of you by somebody looking more official or authoritative – sometimes even helped by an actual airline official for instance. Whenever such a thing happens, I always wonder if such people using some sort of excuse to get ahead ever think of the time that others have been waiting in the queue, or the intrinsic value of the queuing system itself. They are so selfish and so full of themselves that they gleefully acknowledge the invitation by some unauthorized moron ahead of you and leverage the same to pull ahead of the waiting movie-goers or passengers.

More often than not such a thing happens in India, and it almost always does not happen anywhere else that I have been to – signifying the class mentality that is even today embedded in Indians’ minds. I have been to China a number of times and everything works systematically. People follow the rules and nobody solicits favours in common day to day life. The overt display of favourable treatment unfortunately embeds a wrong stereotype in the minds of young impressionable people, who assume that it is just normal and socially acceptable behaviour.

I get annoyed when I come across such instances, because my assumption today is that India and Indians would have moved far ahead in their behavioural culture. That refinement is yet to happen, as I witnessed twice within a span of 15 minutes at the Chennai International Airport last week. In all airports in India, passengers have to produce their airline tickets and a personal identification – in the case of international airports, it has always been your passport.

So here I was in the “airport entry queue” which surprisingly had only some four people ahead of me. I was ready with my passport and ticket, and like it always happens in India, the queue worked both ways. I saw some people who were talking to the police official starting to walk back in a queue which was not wide enough to accommodate two guys and some luggage! But then, in India one always needs to “adjust” – so I made way for these folks walking back. At that time, I saw the guy at my back in the queue who was well dressed and appeared to be respectable. He grew impatient with the delay in the queue not moving forward, and hit my leg with his baggage. I turned towards him and cautioned him to be careful, and then he apologized. I don’t understand this rush to get ahead in every queue in life. Nothing much is going to happen in a few minutes of waiting and letting the official process one by one. In India, the respect for processes is weak everywhere, and that tendency percolates down to inviolable areas such as airports.

Looks like a simple thing, but I do not agree that even apparently educated people get to violate process with impunity.

I got into the airport and proceeded to my airline’s check-in counter. There were just a couple of guys ahead of me in this queue as the counters hadn’t yet opened. And what did I see? Couple of guys, including a lady, could not wait to join the queue and follow it – with hardly any people in it! They lifted the barricade strap and got in ahead of me for the purpose of joining some “known” guy ahead of me, without so much as a simple excuse for breaking the queue discipline.

Again simple stuff, but the refinement of culture and respect for others are lacking – of course, there was never any discipline to start with anyway.

As I walked towards the lounge to start my long wait for the flight, I was ruminating on these mundane daily happenings in India. None of these take away from the greatness of the whole nation, but demonstrates that Indians in general, at the street level, are not willing to learn from the good behavioural practices and common culture prevalent in most other countries.

As I know only too well, Indians travelling abroad or living outside India, forcibly change their behaviour and approach to accommodate respective local practices and confirm or comply to those practices or cultural edicts to protect themselves and make progress. May be in India, the Prime Minister should introduce good cultural behaviour, discipline and respect for each other to the people of India – that should make some improvements in daily life.

Have a good week ahead folks,

Cheers

Vijay Srinivasan

14th July 2019

The Materialistic Urge


Whenever I have had the opportunity to look closely at local friends in Singapore, I cannot but miss the cue on their focus on materialism. More than their focus, I believe they have an insatiable urge to keep bettering themselves from a materialistic point of view.

Is that surprising? Not at all.

What is surprising however, is that people view materialistic progress as a sure sign of their overall worldly progress. Upgrading of a car, for example, from a Toyota or Nissan, to a Mercedes or BMW, becomes a passion for many of the folks who I know, and they are driven by an inner urge towards that goal. While I would say that this drive and passion is mostly internal to their beings, part of it is also driven by comparison with people who are at a similar social status.

The unfortunate impact of such an unstoppable urge is to derail whatever little spiritual progress that could have been made in the meanwhile. A consideration of the holistic well-being of the soul is out of the question, as that will conflict with the materialistic drive. A consideration of the sufferings of the poor is mostly out of question (except to claim tax concession on charitable donations). A consideration, for example, of the low income of restaurant and coffee shop workers (at around SGD 7.5 per hour) in a country with a per capita income of over SGD 60,000 never crosses the mind. The situation is not very different in similar advanced economies such as Japan or Hong Kong or South Korea.

Let us step back for a minute and view the positive aspects of a materialistic focus. Can anything on this topic be “positive”? Yes, it could be – the reason is not far to figure out: the “Asian Tiger Economies” prospered because the respective governments ensured that their citizens are hard-working, with the assurance that a continuously growing economy would indeed create new wealth where none existed in the past. This was largely true, and resulted in booming economies from the Eighties onwards. The three decades following the Eighties were a period of unprecedented wealth creation, driven mostly by manufacturing and exports.

This wealth impacted the citizens in a strongly positive manner, creating an urge in them to drive towards a higher level of materialism. These economies realised that socialism, as practiced in countries like India, is not the right model for economic growth, and capitalism is the way to go forward relentlessly. It worked out.

However, capitalism eventually created greed (as we have seen in many of the scandals in the U.S.), and a persistent desire for more wealth and material benefits. Once this desire starts, it is unstoppable, it is a constant circle of vicious desire leading to more and more lust towards higher level of materialism.

In the process, any spiritual progress is stunted (though it is seen in some pockets of the society due to existence of certain religion-based or community-based societies or associations). People forget that there is something higher than materialism, and they are going to miss it in their lives as time is running out.

If you happen to ask any one of the folks who are very well off in the society, and ask him or her about materialism vs. spirituality, the answer is always almost the same: “of course, we are committed to spirituality and working on it almost every week in classes focused on Yoga or religious recitations, etc.,.” If you ask them whether they would sacrifice any of their material acquisitions in their spiritual journey, the answer is almost always the same: “well, we don’t see the conflict, neither do we see the need to change anything that we have accomplished in life. In fact, we are proud of what we have achieved.”

Well, I am not concluding anything, but you might get a different set of answers, of course. But the point is that materialism has taken precedence over spirituality in the world for the past several decades of economic progress. It is difficult to reverse anything, and the need may not exist in the minds of the people even. When people do not see or feel the need, then there is no contest.

In my mind, both are needed for a society’s progress – spirituality and materialism. Further, there should be equitable sharing of wealth (not “equal”), which means that a CEO of a global public corporation cannot be allowed to earn 2,000 to 3,000 times more than an assembly line worker in his own company. And, poverty needs to be eliminated towards ensuring a basic minimum income adequate to sustain oneself.

Well, these are only wishes of most socialists, and may not come to fruition. However, it may not be out of place to write about it, or to talk about it, or to discuss about it.

Cheers, and have a great week ahead,

Vijay Srinivasan

30th June 2019

The “Wellbeing” National Budget


How do you measure the success of a nation state?

From 1930’s, the single most popular measure has been the GDP, or the Gross Domestic Product, which purports to measure the economic output of a country. It is widely used as an economic growth parameter, and a continuously growing country is supposed to create wealth for its citizens. This has generally been true, and the economically prosperous countries also have some of the highest per capita incomes in the world.

But do economic measures such as GDP and GNP truly reflect the state of “wellbeing” of a country’s citizens? Do these measures accurately portray poverty levels, education standards, homelessness, mental health and healthcare status of citizens? Does every citizen benefit from the national economic growth of his or her country? Do citizens feel happy, or constantly complain about rising costs which affect their daily livelihood? Do citizens think that enough of the national budget is being allocated for education, healthcare and eliminating the scourge of poverty? What is the extent of inequality in a developed country – is it low enough to be ignored? Do citizens feel safe and secure?

The simple and rather simplistic answer is a NO.

There are very few nations which focus on the above non-economic measures to ensure that their citizens are well taken care of. The Nordic countries such as Finland come to mind. Education is completely free, and kids get free lunch at school. We cannot dismiss the Finnish model as a “nanny” state, which it is not. Norway, Sweden, Denmark all have higher status as “happiness” producing countries in the minds of their citizens. Unfortunately, there is no Asian country in the top 10 happiest countries – Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong do not make the cut. Bhutan is a happy country, being the first in the world to have a Gross National Happiness index, but did not make it to the global top 10 ranking in the 2018 report. According to the World Happiness Report published by the United Nations, New Zealand comes in at the 8th place, which is already great.

Now, New Zealand has become the first country in the world to actually publish a “wellbeing” National Budget. The focus is on a set of “wellbeing” priorities which will be adopted by all the ministries. According to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the indomitable Jacinda Ardern, it is more critical to measure the health, satisfaction and safety of the citizens, than to just constantly fixate on GDP growth as a wellbeing measure.

I totally agree.

Though I cannot understand one thing: why do the Kiwis feel that their country is not a happy one? Why are they having one of the highest suicide rates in all of OECD (the league of economically developed Western countries)? Why is domestic violence so high in New Zealand, and yet the United Nations chose to place NZ in its 8th global rank on the world happiness report?

Nevertheless, this initiative to build the entire national budget around wellbeing of citizens is a fantastic one, a new concept, which will be closely watched by the rest of the developed world. NZ needs to ensure that it succeeds in implementation. Otherwise, it will be considered as a flash in the pan, with no measurable impact in creating a sense of well being and reducing levels of poverty and homelessness.

We have to wait and see the impact. In whichever manner we see it, the “wellbeing” budget is a novel concept focused on certain clear national people-centric priorities, which should, with effective implementation and followup, generate a significant sense of wellbeing in NZ citizens. My two cents is that PM Ardern has a new strategic thinking and should be commended for taking the risk to release such a budget to the scrutiny of the public and economic analysts.

All the best to her and her forward-thinking government.

Note: I visited NZ on a family vacation many years ago and came to the conclusion it is one of the best in the world, and my family has always wanted to return to NZ for a second vacation.

Cheers, and have a great weekend folks,

Vijay Srinivasan

15th June 2019

It’s Never Going to End


It has been the bane of the U.S. for a long, long time. And, it continues even more aggressively in the 21st Century, wherein we are all supposed to be living in an evolved social civilization of cultured, refined and civilized human beings living together amicably.

And, it is happening in the most economically and militarily advanced nation on the planet, which is considered to be the only “super power” left after the complete domination and total ascendancy of one single country leaving all the others far behind.

I am referring here to the mutual killings of American citizens by each other, the latest being the mass killing of 12 people in a municipal office building on Virginia Beach on the East Coast of the U.S.

Terrible, and completely avoidable.

Why do civilized people need guns to protect themselves? The U.S. has a very large, dispersed and credible law enforcement department in all its states to guard and protect the people. There should really be no need for weapons, even of the milder variety. In this case of mass shooting, the killer used a high-capacity magazine (to provide him with many more bullets) and a silencer. In previous killings in the U.S., the killers have used military style weapons, which should not have been made available to normal citizens in any case.

As I was watching the episode being played out on CNN yesterday, and then on Michael Smerconish show late in the evening Singapore time, I could feel that this issue of guns and gun violence is not going to go away in the U.S. Smerconish revealed at the end of his session that 73% of the viewers who took part in an online survey which he initiated at the beginning of his show felt the same way. Only 27% of his viewers who participated in the survey felt that something could be done. This shows that the U.S. is inextricably entangled in the gun issue, and the killings that ensue which are unlikely to stop, irrespective of any government legislation.

Why will the most advanced nation on earth allow such unnecessary killings to happen? This was not a terrorist act. The killer was a disgruntled long time municipal employee. Apart from the easy availability of legal guns, the U.S. also has to contend with a more serious issue: that of mental health in a population that is considered to be generally prosperous as per world standards. The per capita income exceeds USD 60,000 and in comparison, India’s per capita income is around USD 2,000 and China’s is around USD 8,000.

If incomes are a determinant of crime in a society, then low incomes in poorer countries should be a leading indicator of endemic violence but that does not seem to be the case. So, it is not income per se that is the cause of violence in society – higher incomes would then have meant a drop in violence and crime. The U.S. is suffering from a combination of mental health problems, segmented unemployment, and very easy availability of weapons. If problems at home can be taken out on one’s colleagues, that is a very bad indication of deteriorating mental stability. It is very difficult to monitor such developments in an individual, unless his or her colleagues report on behavioural changes to the negative extent to their superiors. Oftentimes, the superiors and the HR department ignore such issues as they probably think these will eventually get resolved and should not be bothered with as long as there is no measurable impact on the business.

However, in a developed country with “affluenza”, it becomes critical to observe how employees behave and conduct themselves. Imagine what would be the impact if a large Silicon Valley company or a large Wall Street Bank had a disgruntled, totally frustrated employee who takes out an assault weapon and starts shooting his or her colleagues. Is it unlikely? No, it is not. It can very well happen anytime. We have seen a series of school shootings in the U.S. and the huge psychological and traumatic impact these shootings have had on school going children.

Does any other advanced and civilized nation has this kind of gun problem?

The answer is an emphatic NO. There might be occasional violence and petty crimes, and terrorist attacks in countries such as France and elsewhere. The recent mosque shooting in New Zealand is clearly a terrorist attack. But there is hardly any developed country wherein a guy pulls out his gun from his person and shoots at others in a bar, and these kind of shootings have happened multiple times in the U.S.

The U.S. has a real serious problem on which the government is not paying any attention. The Congress is not paying attention either. Gun violence is coming up only as part of the Presidential Campaign primaries, and even the Democratic hopefuls are tentative as no one wants to take on the most powerful NRA (National Rifle Association) which funds many politicians in the U.S. There are other very powerful Conservative Political Thinktanks and Political Action Committee Funds which keep influencing and funding politicians on the right and the extreme right, and this only means that there will be no legislative solution to the gun violence problem in the U.S. anytime soon. This problem will persist and innocent Americans will keep dying for no fault of theirs.

Is the U.S. setting up a role model on this matter for the rest of the world? I am afraid that such happenings will influence not only the potential gun killers hiding in the U.S. waiting for their turn to unleash their weapons on the slightest pretext, but will also influence killers elsewhere even in better gun-free societies.

And, that is the worst part of the emerging scenario on gun violence in the U.S. It is really high time that the U.S. Government, the Congress and the Supreme Court get together in a non-political manner and launch a new gun violence reduction initiative, part of which should be targeted at offering a gun amnesty program like what Australia executed in the Nineties.

If innocent people continue dying because of gun violence in a peaceful society environment, and not in war or conflict, then the government should ask itself some serious questions. And, take some serious actions.

Will the U.S. government do that?

Surely NO.

Have a great week ahead, folks,

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan

02 June 2019