Vande Mataram
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Honesty, really saves faces?
Today's news conference of the PM was like a guided tour. There were no incisive questions asked. PM chose to blabber away questions on Naxals, Aksai Chin- PoK, caste census and the likes. The only honest admission was that the Government could have performed better. With the prices sky rocketing and the FM unmindful of it, the economist PM is still hopeful of getting the inflation under control by December. (Note: He has not mentioned the year.) He did not bring in justifications for his prediction of 8.5% growth this fiscal, whereas he chose not give any specific numbers for the inflation.
He echoed the general view of the public that corruption is the problem with our nation, but treaded the traditional politicians' path of rubbishing evident corruption in Telecom 2G case. He said that Raja had given his explanation in the public and also the issue was discussed in the Parliament. Well, he added that Raja had just followed TRAI guidelines and had implemented the prevailing policy, whereas the fact is that the TRAI guidelines of "let the market decide the price" have been flaunted without a business justification. Mr. Honesty! you've lost your most boasted ground here.
While welcoming the differences of opinion in the Cabinet as a mark of thriving democracy, Dr.Singh chose to display the democratic principle by contradicting his own Foreign affairs minister. Krishna was buoyant of a growing trust between the neighbours, but Dr.Singh told that there was a trust deficit between the neighbours. On a question of taking back PoK and Aksai-Chin , the PM said that talks have not come to that level of getting to solutions. So, keep jaw-jaw and when the jaw pains take rest and start again!!!
There was a stupid question on whose advise was more suitable for him, Sonia Gandhi or Mrs. Gursharan Kaur. PM could have rubbished this question and asked for something on important issues, but he chose to answer that saying advises from both are valuable as they both advise on different issues. One is political Boss he could not think of relegating down, and the other is provider of his rozi roti whom he could not afford to lose. He also reiterated that there was not an iota of difference between him and Sonia. Could he have a difference and continue as PM? But was this question necessary in his first national press conference where there are more serious issues to be discussed? Or did the media think this is more important than any burning national issues?
He said that the party was not undermining him, on the same vein he said that he was willing to step down if the party chooses a suitable person for his job (read Rahul Gandhi aka Raul Vinci). He also reiterated that Rahul was qualified enough to hold a post in the Union Cabinet. That was true in letter and spirit. We have Alagiri holding a Cabinet post and absconding from Parliament for the entire session, whose only qualification is that he is his M.K's son. Comparing to such colleagues, his preference to Rahul is justifiable!!
He has said that the Naxalism was not under estimated by him or his Government. But then, Mr.PM, why so many policemen have been sacrificed at altar of naxals, when this could have been nipped in the bud? He said that he has been saying for the past three years that Naxalism remains the biggest internal security challenge facing our country. Well, have you taken any actions to root that out Mr.PM? Have you atleast got a person who could war-war instead of jaw-jaw in the war field? The limited mandate and the like jargons would not suffice to fight the terror your Government version 1 allowed to grow and version 2 lurches in fighting.
He treaded the expected line of procrastination in the Afzal Guru case. Let the law of the land take its own course. This is none different from his former boss Narasimha Rao's near inertia and allowing problems to solve by themselves in any way. The Parliament attack was an attack on the core of Indian democracy. But we'd still consider the guilty in that case on par with other rogues and rascals waiting the gallows. Are you trying to emphasize equality atleast on this front, Mr PM?
On Telengana, he said that there was no agreement to create new states. Then why did your Home Minister promise a separate state then back tracked? Was it a ploy to stop KCR from becoming another Potti Sriramulu? Did your Government lie to get KCR to end his fast?
The journalists from Tamilnadu chose to keep silent on the state issues and issues related to the state's sentiments. No question on Sethu Samudram. No question on the pitiful status of SriLankan Tamils, while Rajapakse has strengthened his hold in that country. Rajapakse is known for his anti-Tamil agenda. There are conflicting reports about the status of the internally displaced people. But we're keeping mum. The state leadership has nothing to gain from the SriLankan tamil issue now as there is no imminent election in the state. But you too journalists?
Well, it was a mandatory exercise to reiterate that the PM is the de-jure boss of the Government to ensure smooth sailing of the workings of the de-facto boss. That was done as planned without a hitch. Seems that the center has taken lessons from the alliance partner M.K of TN in conducting guided press conferences. Well learning for the ruling lot, but the people are still suffering.... well, who cares as long as they vote whenever they are told to?
Manmohan Singh is a man of honesty and that was why he was chosen to lead UPA Government, overlooking all other political stalwarts in the Congress. We have an old saying about honesty. “Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.” Manmohan Singh is an honest man. No one would dispute that. But is he a man of integrity? Can he give the same answers to his conscience?
Manmohan Singh is a man of honesty and that was why he was chosen to lead UPA Government, overlooking all other political stalwarts in the Congress. We have an old saying about honesty. “Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.” Manmohan Singh is an honest man. No one would dispute that. But is he a man of integrity? Can he give the same answers to his conscience?
Friday, January 8, 2010
Leadership and use of best talent
There is a notion in the management fraternity nowadays, that the best talent shall be given the responsibility of managing the rest. This is fundamentally wrong. A talent in doing a job or mastery of a specialized skill does not mean that the possessor of the skill or talent would be good in managing people. Management involves a lot of tasks in administrative nature, that consumes a lot of time. There are people who would be good at handling people, but with limited expertise in specific skills.
We have excellent example to support this argument in Mahabharatha. In the war between Pandavas and Kauravas, Pandavas had chosen Dhrishtadhyumna to lead their troops, a person with a lower profile but with a clear motto of defeating the Kauravas, who was born to kill one of the strongmen of Kauravas Dhronacharya. He was a warrior of an impeccable courage and skill, but not as comparable to Bheeshma or any of the other Kaurava front-line generals. He was given charge of administrative duties of the Commander-in-Chief to device strategies and conduct the war, while the likes of Arjuna and Bheema were left free of other tasks and to concentrate on fighting the enemy.
Whereas in the Kaurava army, the task of commanding the forces was given to Bheeshma who was also the one to tackle Arjuna, Abhimanyu and the likes. He was over burdened. His fall on the war field had a morale damaging impact on the troops. Next came Dhronacharya, who was capable of defeating all the Pandava warriors, but was over burdened with the duties of Commander-in-Chief and the daily chores took it's toll on his performance in the war field. But Arjuna or Bheema or any other of the Pandava brothers were fighting wars and Bheema as sworn was on a killing spree of the Kaurava brothers. No front-line warriors of the Pandava forces were given any additional administrative task of anything.
Their supreme leader Yudhishtra was a good listener of his people, who listened to his adviser Krishna and they often brainstormed before devising strategies and were at unison at mind of the way they were going to conduct the war. After the decision was made the C-in-C was given the powers to carry them out. Whereas in the Kaurava camp the supreme leader Dhuryodhana never listened to his advisers. He made them do what he thought was right and the freedom of operation for the leaders were absent. Any step taken inching away from the idea of the supreme leader would result in the head honcho yelling at other leaders in front of others, which resulted in the loss of morale of the troops and also made the leaders perform what was told, but not what was right.
Let us relate this to the latest of the wars. US has waged war on Iraq. Let us not get into the merits of the reasons given by US. The conduct of war was given to professional generals and they have chosen people to do the jobs and they have served the purpose of the war. Saddam was defeated, dethroned and now he is dead. Whereas the other side had advantages of home ground, patriotic people, courageous generals and staff, but yet the leadership was not listening to them or given freedom to them to do what is right. The generals had to follow what the leader had told them. Unlike the allied forces, where the political leadership had given due support to the military leaders had them conduct the business of war. They had finally defeated the enemy.
The same applies to business also. Where the top management conducts the day to day affairs of the business, it ruins the operations finally. They should get the correct people to manage the talent, nurture the talent and make the talented feel good. The conduct of the business operations is the job of the person who manages the operations. The middle management should be given direction to tread and they have to choose the path to tread. The conduct of the march through the path should be left to the junior management. The junior management had to decide at what pace to march, where to slow down and where to speed up.
The people who are chosen to manage things have to possess some talent in the core business to understand it, and the knack of managing people and motivate them to do the right thing. The middle management has to have an understanding of the business and they have to ensure a different and right way of doing the right thing is devised or found in testing times and lead the people in the chosen path. The top management had to be there to look around and find out how to achieve the broad objective and all involved are rewarded and left happy at the end of the day.
We have examples for this too. Lee Iaccoca was not an extremely talented automotive engineer, but he was instrumental in bringing Ford to forefront. Jack Welch was not an extremely talented chemical engineer, but he turned GE around and is still known for his managerial acumen. We have examples in every industry.
Bottom line is skill has to be taught and nurtured and updated. Talent has to be developed and nourished. People management is taking care of the talent and skill, by not ruining it with more additional responsibilities.
We have excellent example to support this argument in Mahabharatha. In the war between Pandavas and Kauravas, Pandavas had chosen Dhrishtadhyumna to lead their troops, a person with a lower profile but with a clear motto of defeating the Kauravas, who was born to kill one of the strongmen of Kauravas Dhronacharya. He was a warrior of an impeccable courage and skill, but not as comparable to Bheeshma or any of the other Kaurava front-line generals. He was given charge of administrative duties of the Commander-in-Chief to device strategies and conduct the war, while the likes of Arjuna and Bheema were left free of other tasks and to concentrate on fighting the enemy.
Whereas in the Kaurava army, the task of commanding the forces was given to Bheeshma who was also the one to tackle Arjuna, Abhimanyu and the likes. He was over burdened. His fall on the war field had a morale damaging impact on the troops. Next came Dhronacharya, who was capable of defeating all the Pandava warriors, but was over burdened with the duties of Commander-in-Chief and the daily chores took it's toll on his performance in the war field. But Arjuna or Bheema or any other of the Pandava brothers were fighting wars and Bheema as sworn was on a killing spree of the Kaurava brothers. No front-line warriors of the Pandava forces were given any additional administrative task of anything.
Their supreme leader Yudhishtra was a good listener of his people, who listened to his adviser Krishna and they often brainstormed before devising strategies and were at unison at mind of the way they were going to conduct the war. After the decision was made the C-in-C was given the powers to carry them out. Whereas in the Kaurava camp the supreme leader Dhuryodhana never listened to his advisers. He made them do what he thought was right and the freedom of operation for the leaders were absent. Any step taken inching away from the idea of the supreme leader would result in the head honcho yelling at other leaders in front of others, which resulted in the loss of morale of the troops and also made the leaders perform what was told, but not what was right.
Let us relate this to the latest of the wars. US has waged war on Iraq. Let us not get into the merits of the reasons given by US. The conduct of war was given to professional generals and they have chosen people to do the jobs and they have served the purpose of the war. Saddam was defeated, dethroned and now he is dead. Whereas the other side had advantages of home ground, patriotic people, courageous generals and staff, but yet the leadership was not listening to them or given freedom to them to do what is right. The generals had to follow what the leader had told them. Unlike the allied forces, where the political leadership had given due support to the military leaders had them conduct the business of war. They had finally defeated the enemy.
The same applies to business also. Where the top management conducts the day to day affairs of the business, it ruins the operations finally. They should get the correct people to manage the talent, nurture the talent and make the talented feel good. The conduct of the business operations is the job of the person who manages the operations. The middle management should be given direction to tread and they have to choose the path to tread. The conduct of the march through the path should be left to the junior management. The junior management had to decide at what pace to march, where to slow down and where to speed up.
The people who are chosen to manage things have to possess some talent in the core business to understand it, and the knack of managing people and motivate them to do the right thing. The middle management has to have an understanding of the business and they have to ensure a different and right way of doing the right thing is devised or found in testing times and lead the people in the chosen path. The top management had to be there to look around and find out how to achieve the broad objective and all involved are rewarded and left happy at the end of the day.
We have examples for this too. Lee Iaccoca was not an extremely talented automotive engineer, but he was instrumental in bringing Ford to forefront. Jack Welch was not an extremely talented chemical engineer, but he turned GE around and is still known for his managerial acumen. We have examples in every industry.
Bottom line is skill has to be taught and nurtured and updated. Talent has to be developed and nourished. People management is taking care of the talent and skill, by not ruining it with more additional responsibilities.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Technical support is mechanical nowadays.
I was reading the much talked about book of former IBM Chief Louis Gerstner. It was like a reference material for management students. Once Mr. Gerstner was referring to an incident with IBM tech support that happened when he was with Amex. The Amex technology people had installed a non IBM server in their department, and the IBM tech support representative refused to support the existing infracture of which 99% were IBM products. The reason behind that was one 3rd party product in the whole lot.
As a tech support guy, I could understand the reason behind the IBM stand at that time. It was early 1980s and technology at that time was not as people savvy as it is now. Even products from the same manufacturer would not be compatible with a different model of machine from the same company. So, a 3rd party server in the network would cause constraints in the support process. The way of expression of that IBM techie and the apathetic reaction to Mr.Gerstner's complaint on that were a cause of concern.
But this attitude of the tech support continue even today. We have an industry standard architecture for any hardware product. We have the most common Operating System, Windows, that occupies 95% of the computers nowadays. Even in cases of Linux or other Operating Systems , we have applications those enable cross platform compatibility. Well, the issue I'm here to discuss is that of the hardware part. Wehad an issue when one of the customers of the company I work with, had called us for.
He had a computer purchased from us which had a network adapter integrated to the motherboard. His internet was working fine for two years. Once he had an issue with the internet. He called us and asked for help. We checked it and found that the network adapter had to be replaced, but in this case the entire motherboard and offered to send a technician to his home to replace it. He said he could not wait for 2-3 days for our technician to go and replace the board. He said he would call us when he was convenient for this arrangement. Someone at his office gave an alternate solution also, that was to purchase a network card and install it. He opted to purchase the network card from a local store and called us for support.
Our tech support refused to help him with that card. That was a 3rd party card, so we should not support, was the reason given by our team. The customer had contacted the card manufacturer and they told that they are not sure about installing parts in this computer and asked him to contact the computer manufacturer. We in turn, referred him to the card manufacturer. After couple of hours of shunting back and forth he decided to hire a local computer technician to get the job done for a cost of a couple of hundred dollars.
Then came the mammoth trouble. The customer then called us asking for refund of the warranty money. His argument was that we didn't support him during a critical time. He was running a business and was in need of internet connection to work on his orders. He could not wait for 2-3 days, our tech support had asked him to wait for. For getting crucial orders processed he had purchased a network card, but we refused to support him citing policy and procedure.
Interestingly during these days, I had gone through a session (online, of course) on customer service. There they had mentioned an incident about a bank taking up a customer's personal request to inform his wife about a flight delay. That bank customer was overseas and called his bank's toll free number, asking them to inform his wife about the flight delay, since he didn't have enough money to make an international call. The bank could have given him some credit and asked him to call his wife and charged him later. Nobody would complain as it was not the bank's job to take up personal requests. But the bank's customer support did take up that request and promptly called the customer's wife and informed about the delay. Then that customer had started recommending this bank to anyone who asked him for any banking needs.
Where did we miss in our case? He was our customer. He had some emergency and had purchased a part from local store. He asked us for help. That part was compatible with our computer and the OS in that. We knew what to do to make that work. I think we should have helped the customer, after giving him the mandatory caveat that we're not trained in the product he had purchased, but we were help him trusting that the product is in compliance with the prevalent industry standards. We could have gained the customer's confidence, and might have got the "word of mouth" in a positive sense.
Our people were cursing the customer stating that he had asked for a warranty refund after violating policy agreement. We're not running any Government that could penalize anyone for violation of its policy and regulations. We're running a business. To sustain customer base and grow it, we have to be customer centric. We have to get rid of the rigid mindset of following policies and losing the customers, and start thinking rather issue centric and focus on resolving customer's problems. Customer support or technical support should have a dash of humanity to survive by serving humans. People who run the service industry must understand the basic tenets of service. Policies are for customers; but customers are not for policies. Would the metric breathing and number crunching corporate czars have time to listen to my voice, that echo most of our customers'?
As a tech support guy, I could understand the reason behind the IBM stand at that time. It was early 1980s and technology at that time was not as people savvy as it is now. Even products from the same manufacturer would not be compatible with a different model of machine from the same company. So, a 3rd party server in the network would cause constraints in the support process. The way of expression of that IBM techie and the apathetic reaction to Mr.Gerstner's complaint on that were a cause of concern.
But this attitude of the tech support continue even today. We have an industry standard architecture for any hardware product. We have the most common Operating System, Windows, that occupies 95% of the computers nowadays. Even in cases of Linux or other Operating Systems , we have applications those enable cross platform compatibility. Well, the issue I'm here to discuss is that of the hardware part. Wehad an issue when one of the customers of the company I work with, had called us for.
He had a computer purchased from us which had a network adapter integrated to the motherboard. His internet was working fine for two years. Once he had an issue with the internet. He called us and asked for help. We checked it and found that the network adapter had to be replaced, but in this case the entire motherboard and offered to send a technician to his home to replace it. He said he could not wait for 2-3 days for our technician to go and replace the board. He said he would call us when he was convenient for this arrangement. Someone at his office gave an alternate solution also, that was to purchase a network card and install it. He opted to purchase the network card from a local store and called us for support.
Our tech support refused to help him with that card. That was a 3rd party card, so we should not support, was the reason given by our team. The customer had contacted the card manufacturer and they told that they are not sure about installing parts in this computer and asked him to contact the computer manufacturer. We in turn, referred him to the card manufacturer. After couple of hours of shunting back and forth he decided to hire a local computer technician to get the job done for a cost of a couple of hundred dollars.
Then came the mammoth trouble. The customer then called us asking for refund of the warranty money. His argument was that we didn't support him during a critical time. He was running a business and was in need of internet connection to work on his orders. He could not wait for 2-3 days, our tech support had asked him to wait for. For getting crucial orders processed he had purchased a network card, but we refused to support him citing policy and procedure.
Interestingly during these days, I had gone through a session (online, of course) on customer service. There they had mentioned an incident about a bank taking up a customer's personal request to inform his wife about a flight delay. That bank customer was overseas and called his bank's toll free number, asking them to inform his wife about the flight delay, since he didn't have enough money to make an international call. The bank could have given him some credit and asked him to call his wife and charged him later. Nobody would complain as it was not the bank's job to take up personal requests. But the bank's customer support did take up that request and promptly called the customer's wife and informed about the delay. Then that customer had started recommending this bank to anyone who asked him for any banking needs.
Where did we miss in our case? He was our customer. He had some emergency and had purchased a part from local store. He asked us for help. That part was compatible with our computer and the OS in that. We knew what to do to make that work. I think we should have helped the customer, after giving him the mandatory caveat that we're not trained in the product he had purchased, but we were help him trusting that the product is in compliance with the prevalent industry standards. We could have gained the customer's confidence, and might have got the "word of mouth" in a positive sense.
Our people were cursing the customer stating that he had asked for a warranty refund after violating policy agreement. We're not running any Government that could penalize anyone for violation of its policy and regulations. We're running a business. To sustain customer base and grow it, we have to be customer centric. We have to get rid of the rigid mindset of following policies and losing the customers, and start thinking rather issue centric and focus on resolving customer's problems. Customer support or technical support should have a dash of humanity to survive by serving humans. People who run the service industry must understand the basic tenets of service. Policies are for customers; but customers are not for policies. Would the metric breathing and number crunching corporate czars have time to listen to my voice, that echo most of our customers'?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Indian Citizenship for Eezham Tamils
It is reported in the media that the TamilNadu chief minister MK has asked for Indian citizenship for Tamil refugees of Srilanka. As a vote minding politician his demand is correct. He could boast of getting them citizenship and end up getting their vote en masse. The ruling Congress at the center, which too could not stay back in expressing its concern about the Tamils as it could not afford to have the "bad name" of not caring for Tamils. Hom Min PC has said that the GoI would favorably consider this.
This episode sends a signal that even our ivy-league politicians could not think of the pros and cons of an issue and come up with an argument for or against a stance in an issue. He has to play second or side fiddle to MK for fear of losing the Tamil votes. Whatever MK says with a dash of Tamil sentiments and a splash of Tamil brotherhood, others have to follow suit or they would be branded as anti-Tamils. This makes democracy a mockery and Churchill a prophet.
The moot question is whether the Srilankan Tamil people want Indian citizenship? They, spread all over the world, prefer to go back to Eezham land and lead a life of their own. They have taken citizenship of many other nations where they stay to make a living. But when it comes to the question of foregoing Eezham and staying put in the country of living, they would prefer Eezham. The question may - no, it should-arise that what should be the problem for India to grant citizenship for Lankan Tamil refugees when other nations have done so.
The answer is, technically by the law, there is no problem. But the spirit of the problem lies with the sentiments of Tamils. Our brothers have been driven out of their homes by some beasts. Do we prefer to keep them at our home forever, or take steps to beat the beasts out and make their home livable? Of course we'll temporarily keep them at our home and take care of them, but won't we take real steps to get them back to their home?
The politicians of Tamil Nadu except quite a few have only done lip service to the Eezham Tamil fraternity. Either they've got money from LTTE and supported them in the name of Eezham Tamils, or they've supported Eezham Tamils for getting votes in their name and on their sufferings. They have merely played with the sentiments of the local Tamil people. Some politicians may go for a defamation law suit against me. They will never have the guts nor facts to tell the court of law what constructive steps they have taken without fear, fervour, fiduciary and political benefits.
Why can't the TN Government pressurize the center to go for an embargo of Lankan tea and other products in protest against the despicable treatment meted out to the Tamil brethren who could not manage to flee the war torn island? Why can't we step up diplomatic pressure on the Lankan Government through the UN, G-20 and other international fora? With an eminent Tamil lawyer as Hom Min in the Center and with the influence in the ruling coalition, MK could easily have got things done in this way.
Rather he prefers to keep our brethren at our home and asking them patiently wait for the good to happen in its own pace. Citizenship for them is not correct politically and sentimentally. Work toward getting them back to their home and let them live with dignity. The feel of losing home and living at someone else's mercy is really painful. The granting of Indian citizenship to the Eezham people would be a disastrous step that would result in forgoing the rights of Tamils for either a few thousand votes or sentimental foolishness. Step up a campaign against the holocaust of the east. Make the Lankan Government do the right things. That would really make MK a leader of the Tamil brethren as he wishes to be addressed to.
This episode sends a signal that even our ivy-league politicians could not think of the pros and cons of an issue and come up with an argument for or against a stance in an issue. He has to play second or side fiddle to MK for fear of losing the Tamil votes. Whatever MK says with a dash of Tamil sentiments and a splash of Tamil brotherhood, others have to follow suit or they would be branded as anti-Tamils. This makes democracy a mockery and Churchill a prophet.
The moot question is whether the Srilankan Tamil people want Indian citizenship? They, spread all over the world, prefer to go back to Eezham land and lead a life of their own. They have taken citizenship of many other nations where they stay to make a living. But when it comes to the question of foregoing Eezham and staying put in the country of living, they would prefer Eezham. The question may - no, it should-arise that what should be the problem for India to grant citizenship for Lankan Tamil refugees when other nations have done so.
The answer is, technically by the law, there is no problem. But the spirit of the problem lies with the sentiments of Tamils. Our brothers have been driven out of their homes by some beasts. Do we prefer to keep them at our home forever, or take steps to beat the beasts out and make their home livable? Of course we'll temporarily keep them at our home and take care of them, but won't we take real steps to get them back to their home?
The politicians of Tamil Nadu except quite a few have only done lip service to the Eezham Tamil fraternity. Either they've got money from LTTE and supported them in the name of Eezham Tamils, or they've supported Eezham Tamils for getting votes in their name and on their sufferings. They have merely played with the sentiments of the local Tamil people. Some politicians may go for a defamation law suit against me. They will never have the guts nor facts to tell the court of law what constructive steps they have taken without fear, fervour, fiduciary and political benefits.
Why can't the TN Government pressurize the center to go for an embargo of Lankan tea and other products in protest against the despicable treatment meted out to the Tamil brethren who could not manage to flee the war torn island? Why can't we step up diplomatic pressure on the Lankan Government through the UN, G-20 and other international fora? With an eminent Tamil lawyer as Hom Min in the Center and with the influence in the ruling coalition, MK could easily have got things done in this way.
Rather he prefers to keep our brethren at our home and asking them patiently wait for the good to happen in its own pace. Citizenship for them is not correct politically and sentimentally. Work toward getting them back to their home and let them live with dignity. The feel of losing home and living at someone else's mercy is really painful. The granting of Indian citizenship to the Eezham people would be a disastrous step that would result in forgoing the rights of Tamils for either a few thousand votes or sentimental foolishness. Step up a campaign against the holocaust of the east. Make the Lankan Government do the right things. That would really make MK a leader of the Tamil brethren as he wishes to be addressed to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)