India's partisan governors

Karthik · 03-12-2005, 23:10 PM

Quote:

In India, governors are appointed to office in states for a five-year term by the president on the advice of the prime minister, and their conduct is supposed to be, in principle, above politics.
That is often not quite the case.

The latest example is the political row involving the governor of the northern state of Jharkhand, who has appointed a ruling party alliance member as chief minister.

Governor Syed Sibte Razi appointed regional Jharkhand Mukti Morcha party chief, Shibu Soren, even though there were doubts about whether he would be able to cobble together a majority.

The Congress-led alliance, of which Mr Soren is a member, won only 26 of the 81 assembly seats, against 36 for the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), in recent state polls.

'Debasing'

This has predictably kicked up a storm, with the BJP-led opposition crying foul, stalling parliament and using colourful language - a senior politician called Mr Razi a "contract killer".

It is self-defeating politics for Congress. The party has invited rancour and critique out of sheer myopia

Ashutosh Varshney,
political scientist

The opposition also paraded in front of President APJ Kalam and the media 41 number-tagged legislators, including one lying in an ambulance, who claim to be supporting the NDA.

President Kalam called Mr Kazi to Delhi to explain his controversial decision.

The case has seen Indian politics once again plumbing the depths of partisanship, with public discourse being trivialised.

At the root is the colonial legacy of partisan governors who have frequently acted as agents of the ruling party in Delhi.

Under limited-self rule, which gave Indian provinces a system of democratic, autonomous governments, elections were held in 1937. Congress was voted into power in seven of the 11 provinces.

In the 1940s, the governors, acting under orders of the viceroy, dismissed a number of these Congress governments on the viceroy's orders.

Analysts say that in many cases governors have become agents of the governing party today in place of the viceroys.

This is especially so when there is a split electoral verdict in a state.

Party lines

The Congress party, say analysts, carried on the colonial legacy of appointing pliable governors to make or break state governments.

There are doubts whether Shibu Soren can get a majority

The problem lies in the informal convention of appointing former, out-of-work politicians as governors.

"Why are ex-politicians appointed as governors? They are like consolation postings. This trend began in the late sixties and led to the politicisation of the post," says analyst Mahesh Rangarajan.

This politicisation now finds favour across party lines.

When the National Front government replaced the Congress government in 1989, the new prime minister, VP Singh, asked 18 governors to resign so he could replace them with his own men.

And when the Congress Party alliance swept to power last May, one of the first things it did was to remove three state governors and replace them with, as one newspaper said, "old Congress hacks".

Changing times

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, governors appointed by the ruling Congress party had a hand in dismissing several governments.

Now, India's chaotic political culture is influenced by round the clock news, stronger opposition parties, increased assertiveness of presidents and the judiciary, and more informed public opinion.

"I think it will be hard for any party, let alone Congress to return to the politics of the 1970s and 1980s. The times have changed forever," says Ashutosh Varshney who teaches political science at the University of Michigan.

Indian papers have been critical of the governor's decision

"If Congress has indeed made an arrogant error, I expect a self-correction."

A number of senior Congress leaders privately admit they are deeply embarrassed by the developments in Jharkhand.

They feel the governor acted in "unseemly haste" and the image of the party has taken a hit.

"Congress has lost considerable prestige. Every action should have legitimacy. The one in Jharkhand did not have one," a senior Congress leader and member of the highest decision- making body, told BBC News Online.

The political fiasco in Jharkhand, coming within days of the government presenting a reformist Union budget, points to a disconnection between Congress' old-world, almost feudal political culture and modern governance values under a technocrat prime minister.

While the party's reform-friendly ministers try to pursue modern policies, the politics of the party seems to be shrouded in secretive backroom politicking by the old guard, who steadfastly keep out bright, young leaders from having a say in party affairs.

Gains made on the government front are easily frittered away by political public relations disasters like Jharkhand.

"This is not just a crisis of constitutional morality, but also Congress culture itself," says political philosopher, Pratap Bhanu Mehta.

"All of Congress' policy initiatives will come to a nought if it always appears so desperate for power."

Article

Two weeks of pure political theatre. The Congress seems to be determined to grab power even if that means a serious miscarriage of democracy.

Shameful.

Rahul · 03-12-2005, 23:52 PM

That's why...India needs a government like ours we have here, not this mess of a parliamentary system!!

Karthik · 03-13-2005, 00:27 AM

Rahul, I agree with you, but we need more of a bi-party system than a Presidential form of government.

Rahul · 03-13-2005, 01:14 AM

Karthik, a system like ours encourages the formation of two, national parties that act as big tents, moderating the extreme right and extreme left by forcing them to participate in national, Presidential elections where they have to secure a majority. In the Senate and House too, the two parties act as moderators of the political spectrum. Corruption is also lessened by the fact that so many people are directly elected, so that corrupt goverors or mayors can be kicked out as soon as their term is up. Also, devolution of powers to state and local gov'ts helps reduce corruption. This nonsense with forming a government and the governor favoring one party would never have to happen. A direct election for governor would take place along with elections for the state Senate and House (here in Michigan, some other states have it a bit differently). The Governor could be a Republican and the House and Senate be dominated by Dems.

With a parliament, you're almost guaranteed to get multiple parties IMO. And, legislators have little independence as all tehy can do is "support the party" or "not support the party". And, if they do the latter, the party may pull them off the candidate list for their home district in the next election. In the US, parties aren't that strong so corruption inside political parties is lessened. Also, having so many elected offices encourages popular participation and thus makes people more mad when politicians try to pull fast ones on them.

Ray · 03-13-2005, 02:49 AM

Democracy is not merely for a stable govt.

Democracy stands for Vox Populi Vox Dei = Voice of the People is the Voice of God.

Therefore, a two party electoral process cannot be the representation of the diversity of the electorate. Neither can each man be a political party by himself, unless each man has the money, time and will to contest the elections and then devote himself for the progress of the country. That will never come to pass.

Therefore, in a vast country as India with a plethora of problems, it is not unnatural to find a large number of political parties.

A two party electorate does have advantage, but it is hardly feasible in India. In fact, it has boiled down to that itself in India - UPA vs NDA. The added advanatage is that there being a whole lot of parties in the govt, there are many views that have to be accomodated and the popular view thereafter emerges. I am aware that even this can be flawed, but then democracy was never perfect!

In so far as the conduct of the Governor and the Lok Sabha Speaker is concerned, it is nothing short of being disgracefully partisan; the former two being encouraged by the wheeler dealers in the Congress High Command; even Sonia Gandhi cannot pretend innocence.

The Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has proved to be the ass that he is with his untimely missive that has brought the high office to the level of appearing politically partisan. Acutally, he is more worried that in the next election because of this massive mess, the incumbent govt will get a drubbing and their camp followers, the Communists (of which he is a member) will return to the oblivion that they richly deserve.

Karthik · 03-13-2005, 06:40 AM

Somnath Chatterjee demands respect rather than commanding it. What business did he have to call an all party meet on the SC ruling ? Now that it hasn't produced anything tangible, he's now called for a meeting of the state speakers, but that is already a failure even before it starts.

He should stop giving himself false airs, because he thinks he's the ultimate guardian of the constitution and the sole champion of parliamentary democracy, which he's not.

These looney leftists got it in their face when the SC banned frequent strikes and rallies that paralyse public life. Serves them right. They should stop blaming the highest court of the land and look inwards.

Karthik · 03-13-2005, 06:51 AM

Rahul,

We can have a two party system, provided each of those parties have compulsorily have all sections of the society, be it minorities, SC & ST's, or tribals.

If the experience of Goa, Jharkhand and Bihar are anything to go by, then we are heading towards uncertain times. A hung verdict, to the extent that no government can be formed, or at the best a formation of an extremely fragile government is not good. Politics cannot survive in vacuum.

But as Ray has pointed, we already have two poles in Indian politics, the UPA and NDA. The question we should ask ourselves is if this can be extended into a complete two party system.

Oh BTW, the CM of your state, Mr.Reddy is a total moron. I saw him speaking on TV. He has NO idea what he's talking.

Rahul · 03-13-2005, 09:43 AM

Ray and Karthik, I agree Indian politics is heading in that two party direction as it has the two poles you both described, the NDA on the right and the UPA on the left. However, the UPA especially seems to be nothing more than a puppet whose strings get yanked by the commies whenever they feel the need to do their best to turn India into N. Korea and everyone's strings seemed to get pulled by Sonia Gandhi, despite her "renouncement" of the PMship last spring. This sort of thing is simply disgusting because if a government is formed in any country, to get something done and earn its salary, it should have spine IMO to pursue programs that the PM outlines, not that the party chief outlines and that a small coalition partner starts crying about.

Also Ray, pt. taken about two parties being two stifling for the variety of views in India. Still, it'd be nice if two "big tents", the UPA and NDA, became the usual governments that form as it would give Indian politics some stability IMO and moderate some of the more far right and far left elements (extreme Hinduvta and commies) by forcing them to participate as part of coalitions. Also, it'd be nice IMO if the BJP and Congress became right of center and left of center national parties respectively as that way, India could realize the advantage of a Parliamentary system over a system like ours here in the US at the national level: the ability of the Parliament to do what it sees as best for the nation as MPs unlike Members of Congress don't view themselves as delegates from their respective states but rather as members of their national political party.

Karthik, isn't it so true!!! Y.S. Reddy-gaaroo is the biggest partisan hack in the world (except perhaps for Lalu-ji or Dharam Singh-ji, who has ruined Bihar and is trying his best to ruin Karnataka respectively). In one thing Y.S. Reddy said, he actually said something like "even bureaucrats and politicians have families to feed" when asked about corruption!!! I mean, those corrupt people aren't just feeding their families, they're feeding them and buying their spoiled kids Playstation 2s and buying themselves all sorts of goodies. His free power to farmers nonsense is also ridiculuous. I can bet next time I go to Hyderabad to visit my relatives, if he's still in office, there will be huge power cuts as "farmers" are being given their "free power" (but the best part will be how some farmers happen to live in appartments overlooking Hussain Sagar or brand new houses in Jubilee Hills and be elected members of the state legislature). Yeah, if my relatives come here in teh summer from India, I plan on asking them about Y.S. Reddy and what they think. I only go by what I've read online and hear from people like you. Ever since I started reading a lot of Indian websites about a year ago about what's going on India, I've been continually appalled at some politicians' and their actions like what happened with the governors and like good old Y. S. Reddy.

Karthik · 03-13-2005, 12:09 PM

Rahul,

Quote:

pursue programs that the PM outlines, not that the party chief outlines and that a small coalition partner starts crying about.

That is so very true. The thing is, Manmohan Singh is a gentleman. During this recent drama about Jharkhand, Advani accused Singh of being invisible. Poor old Singh. I wonder if he had any other option. He's answerable to all the misdemeanors that take place on the orders of 10 Janpath. I feel sorry for him.

Take my word for it, Rahul Gandhi is going to be the Congress's prime minsterial candidate in the next general election. They cannot look beyond the Gandhis. They have resolute, blind faith in them. This absolutely irks me.

YS Reddy's idea of free power to farmers will give you a rough estimate of the depth of his knowledge when it comes to running a government. I daresay it's too shallow for any yardstick of measurement.

PlayStations will now be on the increase in AP, as Reddy has grand plans for government employees, SC ST's and others.

Rahul · 03-13-2005, 14:01 PM

Quote:

Take my word for it, Rahul Gandhi is going to be the Congress's prime minsterial candidate in the next general election. They cannot look beyond the Gandhis. They have resolute, blind faith in them. This absolutely irks me.

This right here is my beef with the Congress party. The Dems could look beyond the Kennedys, the Republicans are planning to look beyond the Bush family in 2008 (or at least Jeb says he doesn't want to run), but in India, they have this overabundance of mindless sycophants who "enter politics", have no ideology or vision whatsoever, and soon become professional *****-kissers of the Gandhi dynasty. IMO, on domestic policy, I haven't seen the Gandhi dynasty do a single spectacular thing while Nehru's disaster of a foreign policy cancels out anythign positive the others might have done (except for Indira Gandhi given her role in the 71 war and her gaining India nukes in 74, though admittedly, I need to read more on India's post-independence history). Rao was IMO the best PM the Congress produced for his role in liberalizing the economy and moving away from the Cold War and Non-Aligned-Moronicness mindset after the Soviet Union's collapse. And what a coincidence, he was made PM because his last name was Gandhi!!

YS Reddy's free power idea gave me the only estimate I needed. His only good program has been this one he launched that Sania mirza is promoting, a program to reduce illegal abortions of female children to balance the gender ratio.

Ray · 03-13-2005, 16:09 PM

The Congress Party has no hope till the shake off the shackles of this Nehru Gandhi nonsense. There is no glimmer of hope. The non Nehru Gandhi familiy members are basically servants, who are satisfied to live off the crumbs thrown their way.

The BJP with their religious affiliations are an anathema to quite a few including Hindus. Unless, they shed this, there is also no hope.

That is why regional parties are on the rise.

amit · 03-13-2005, 17:29 PM

If India applied a "winner take all" policy, then the BJP and Congress may be favored.

Samudra · 03-13-2005, 23:04 PM

As Ray Sir , has pointed out the whole lot of parties will boil down to two teams in the near future.

But Rahul and Karthik , i come from a family of farmers who still proclaim that we are farmers by profession though we do things that bring far better money , so i presume i know a bit about the woes of those poor folks.

Take my words for it , the average farmer in Tamil Nadu will quit farming the next day free electricity is cut-off.

And i hear that farmers in many western liberalised nations are also recieving a hell lot of subsidies.And those are far less than what our peasant folk recieve.

Has US shown any inclination towards cutting down on subsidies ?
No !

In 2002 , Dubya signed the Farm Bill , by virtue of which subsidies to certain crops could be increased upto 80%.

Is it not true that US is going to spend $171 Billion over a decade on Direct Farm Subsidies?

What its effect could be on small farms and rural communities in America is immaterial to me.

For all that i know , free power given to the farmer is not a bad thing.

My father told me that with the amount of subsidy a owner of a cow recieves in a European Country, he could buy ten cows every year in India.

And we talk eloquently of making life harder for the Indian farmer.

Karthik · 03-15-2005, 09:06 AM

Samudra,

Thats a fair point that you make about subsidies. Those subsidies that the west so stubbornly gives to their farmers must go. Otherwise we will have another Cancun.

JASOOS VIJAY · 01-28-2006, 03:38 AM

After Butta Singh being booted out, now is the turn of karnataka Governor's. So pathetic are these kangress appointees

.

03-12-2005, 23:52 PM	#2 (permalink)
Rahul Contributor Join Date: 08-28-04 Location: Michigan, United States of America Posts: 377	That's why...India needs a government like ours we have here, not this mess of a parliamentary system!! __________________ Am out of town for a while and then have tons of work coming up at school. Will be back once that's all done.

03-13-2005, 02:49 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,269 Country:	Democracy is not merely for a stable govt. Democracy stands for Vox Populi Vox Dei = Voice of the People is the Voice of God. Therefore, a two party electoral process cannot be the representation of the diversity of the electorate. Neither can each man be a political party by himself, unless each man has the money, time and will to contest the elections and then devote himself for the progress of the country. That will never come to pass. Therefore, in a vast country as India with a plethora of problems, it is not unnatural to find a large number of political parties. A two party electorate does have advantage, but it is hardly feasible in India. In fact, it has boiled down to that itself in India - UPA vs NDA. The added advanatage is that there being a whole lot of parties in the govt, there are many views that have to be accomodated and the popular view thereafter emerges. I am aware that even this can be flawed, but then democracy was never perfect! In so far as the conduct of the Governor and the Lok Sabha Speaker is concerned, it is nothing short of being disgracefully partisan; the former two being encouraged by the wheeler dealers in the Congress High Command; even Sonia Gandhi cannot pretend innocence. The Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has proved to be the ass that he is with his untimely missive that has brought the high office to the level of appearing politically partisan. Acutally, he is more worried that in the next election because of this massive mess, the incumbent govt will get a drubbing and their camp followers, the Communists (of which he is a member) will return to the oblivion that they richly deserve. Last edited by Ray : 03-13-2005 at 02:57 AM.

03-13-2005, 09:43 AM	#8 (permalink)
Rahul Contributor Join Date: 08-28-04 Location: Michigan, United States of America Posts: 377	Ray and Karthik, I agree Indian politics is heading in that two party direction as it has the two poles you both described, the NDA on the right and the UPA on the left. However, the UPA especially seems to be nothing more than a puppet whose strings get yanked by the commies whenever they feel the need to do their best to turn India into N. Korea and everyone's strings seemed to get pulled by Sonia Gandhi, despite her "renouncement" of the PMship last spring. This sort of thing is simply disgusting because if a government is formed in any country, to get something done and earn its salary, it should have spine IMO to pursue programs that the PM outlines, not that the party chief outlines and that a small coalition partner starts crying about. Also Ray, pt. taken about two parties being two stifling for the variety of views in India. Still, it'd be nice if two "big tents", the UPA and NDA, became the usual governments that form as it would give Indian politics some stability IMO and moderate some of the more far right and far left elements (extreme Hinduvta and commies) by forcing them to participate as part of coalitions. Also, it'd be nice IMO if the BJP and Congress became right of center and left of center national parties respectively as that way, India could realize the advantage of a Parliamentary system over a system like ours here in the US at the national level: the ability of the Parliament to do what it sees as best for the nation as MPs unlike Members of Congress don't view themselves as delegates from their respective states but rather as members of their national political party. Karthik, isn't it so true!!! Y.S. Reddy-gaaroo is the biggest partisan hack in the world (except perhaps for Lalu-ji or Dharam Singh-ji, who has ruined Bihar and is trying his best to ruin Karnataka respectively). In one thing Y.S. Reddy said, he actually said something like "even bureaucrats and politicians have families to feed" when asked about corruption!!! I mean, those corrupt people aren't just feeding their families, they're feeding them and buying their spoiled kids Playstation 2s and buying themselves all sorts of goodies. His free power to farmers nonsense is also ridiculuous. I can bet next time I go to Hyderabad to visit my relatives, if he's still in office, there will be huge power cuts as "farmers" are being given their "free power" (but the best part will be how some farmers happen to live in appartments overlooking Hussain Sagar or brand new houses in Jubilee Hills and be elected members of the state legislature). Yeah, if my relatives come here in teh summer from India, I plan on asking them about Y.S. Reddy and what they think. I only go by what I've read online and hear from people like you. Ever since I started reading a lot of Indian websites about a year ago about what's going on India, I've been continually appalled at some politicians' and their actions like what happened with the governors and like good old Y. S. Reddy. Last edited by Rahul : 03-13-2005 at 09:47 AM.

03-13-2005, 23:04 PM	#13 (permalink)
Samudra *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-01-04 Location: North London Posts: 4,430 Country:	As Ray Sir , has pointed out the whole lot of parties will boil down to two teams in the near future. But Rahul and Karthik , i come from a family of farmers who still proclaim that we are farmers by profession though we do things that bring far better money , so i presume i know a bit about the woes of those poor folks. Take my words for it , the average farmer in Tamil Nadu will quit farming the next day free electricity is cut-off. And i hear that farmers in many western liberalised nations are also recieving a hell lot of subsidies.And those are far less than what our peasant folk recieve. Has US shown any inclination towards cutting down on subsidies ? No ! In 2002 , Dubya signed the Farm Bill , by virtue of which subsidies to certain crops could be increased upto 80%. Is it not true that US is going to spend $171 Billion over a decade on Direct Farm Subsidies? What its effect could be on small farms and rural communities in America is immaterial to me. For all that i know , free power given to the farmer is not a bad thing. My father told me that with the amount of subsidy a owner of a cow recieves in a European Country, he could buy ten cows every year in India. And we talk eloquently of making life harder for the Indian farmer. Last edited by Samudra : 03-13-2005 at 23:20 PM.

01-28-2006, 03:38 AM	#15 (permalink)
JASOOS VIJAY Regular Join Date: 05-23-05 Posts: 121	After Butta Singh being booted out, now is the turn of karnataka Governor's. So pathetic are these kangress appointees . __________________ EAST OR WEST INDIA IS THE BEST!!!

03-13-2005, 00:27 AM	#3 (permalink)
Karthik Seeker of Rivendell *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-15-04 Posts: 1,569 Country:	Rahul, I agree with you, but we need more of a bi-party system than a Presidential form of government.

03-13-2005, 01:14 AM	#4 (permalink)
Rahul Contributor Join Date: 08-28-04 Location: Michigan, United States of America Posts: 377	Karthik, a system like ours encourages the formation of two, national parties that act as big tents, moderating the extreme right and extreme left by forcing them to participate in national, Presidential elections where they have to secure a majority. In the Senate and House too, the two parties act as moderators of the political spectrum. Corruption is also lessened by the fact that so many people are directly elected, so that corrupt goverors or mayors can be kicked out as soon as their term is up. Also, devolution of powers to state and local gov'ts helps reduce corruption. This nonsense with forming a government and the governor favoring one party would never have to happen. A direct election for governor would take place along with elections for the state Senate and House (here in Michigan, some other states have it a bit differently). The Governor could be a Republican and the House and Senate be dominated by Dems. With a parliament, you're almost guaranteed to get multiple parties IMO. And, legislators have little independence as all tehy can do is "support the party" or "not support the party". And, if they do the latter, the party may pull them off the candidate list for their home district in the next election. In the US, parties aren't that strong so corruption inside political parties is lessened. Also, having so many elected offices encourages popular participation and thus makes people more mad when politicians try to pull fast ones on them.

03-13-2005, 06:40 AM	#6 (permalink)
Karthik Seeker of Rivendell *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-15-04 Posts: 1,569 Country:	Somnath Chatterjee demands respect rather than commanding it. What business did he have to call an all party meet on the SC ruling ? Now that it hasn't produced anything tangible, he's now called for a meeting of the state speakers, but that is already a failure even before it starts. He should stop giving himself false airs, because he thinks he's the ultimate guardian of the constitution and the sole champion of parliamentary democracy, which he's not. These looney leftists got it in their face when the SC banned frequent strikes and rallies that paralyse public life. Serves them right. They should stop blaming the highest court of the land and look inwards.

03-13-2005, 06:51 AM	#7 (permalink)
Karthik Seeker of Rivendell *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-15-04 Posts: 1,569 Country:	Rahul, We can have a two party system, provided each of those parties have compulsorily have all sections of the society, be it minorities, SC & ST's, or tribals. If the experience of Goa, Jharkhand and Bihar are anything to go by, then we are heading towards uncertain times. A hung verdict, to the extent that no government can be formed, or at the best a formation of an extremely fragile government is not good. Politics cannot survive in vacuum. But as Ray has pointed, we already have two poles in Indian politics, the UPA and NDA. The question we should ask ourselves is if this can be extended into a complete two party system. Oh BTW, the CM of your state, Mr.Reddy is a total moron. I saw him speaking on TV. He has NO idea what he's talking.

03-13-2005, 16:09 PM	#11 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,269 Country:	The Congress Party has no hope till the shake off the shackles of this Nehru Gandhi nonsense. There is no glimmer of hope. The non Nehru Gandhi familiy members are basically servants, who are satisfied to live off the crumbs thrown their way. The BJP with their religious affiliations are an anathema to quite a few including Hindus. Unless, they shed this, there is also no hope. That is why regional parties are on the rise.

03-13-2005, 17:29 PM	#12 (permalink)
amit Patron Join Date: 11-16-04 Location: California Posts: 287	If India applied a "winner take all" policy, then the BJP and Congress may be favored.

03-15-2005, 09:06 AM	#14 (permalink)
Karthik Seeker of Rivendell *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-15-04 Posts: 1,569 Country:	Samudra, Thats a fair point that you make about subsidies. Those subsidies that the west so stubbornly gives to their farmers must go. Otherwise we will have another Cancun.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
India Infrastructure News and Discussions	Akshay	Political Discussions	369	08-13-2008 09:10 AM
Indian Economy	Monk	International Politics	750	08-03-2007 00:10 AM
China's foot in India's door	Neo	International Politics	29	07-08-2007 03:31 AM
Walker's World: India's nuke deal falters	gamercube	Political Discussions	21	03-13-2007 12:43 PM
India & China Thread	percentage_plyr	Political Discussions	35	06-18-2006 17:12 PM