SURAT: A plea for bankruptcy protection, filed by leading US diamond and jewellery seller M Fabrikant & Sons Inc, is sending shivers down the spine of the diamond manufacturing industry in Surat, as the company reportedly owes large amount of money to diamond units in the city.
Fabrikant-Leer International, a subsidiary of M Fabrikant, also filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code last Friday.
Though the industry is tight-lipped about the development, sources said many diamond firms in the city are likely to suffer losses. According to them, the total debt of Fabrikant, which has a joint venture in the US with Mumbai-based Tara Jewels, would be around $363 million, of which it owes around $36 million (Rs 165 crore) to creditors. Of this Rs 165 crore, around 80-90%, amounting to about Rs 130-150 crore, are due to units in Surat.
Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC) chairman Sanjay Kothari, however, says Fabrikant’s total debt to Indian diamond merchants would be $25 million or around Rs 115 crore.
“Many diamond firms in Surat have close business links with Fabrikant, which is a major buyer of polished diamonds. The outstanding dues of these manufacturers will be in peril because of the bankruptcy-protection petition,” a leading diamond manufacturer told DNA Money.
However, sources pointed out that even if Fabrikant goes bankrupt, the creditors would be paid around 30% of their dues, so the economic losses would not be too huge. But there would definitely be loss of business.
“The bankruptcy petition will have an adverse effect on Surat’s diamond manufacturing industry as demand for polished goods will be hit. With Christmas round the corner, the development could not have come at a worse time,” said Dinesh Navadia, a local manufacturer.
Fabrikant is learnt to have run into financial troubles due to huge write-offs and reduced sales from the bankruptcy of two of its big retail customers and a reduction in Wal-Mart purchases. Secondly, its lenders imposed tougher borrowing rules following a poor financial performance in 2005.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1065761
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Enron v/s Iridium: similarities and contrasts
Remember Iridium LLC, the global satellite phone company that went up in smoke? Until the Enron flameout, Iridium was probably the most high-profile bankruptcy in the United States in recent times.
Iridium was Motorola’s dream experiment, which envisaged 66 artificial satellites girdling the globe and connecting up with terrestrial systems to zap calls to user telephones anywhere on earth. I remember Iridium’s slick talking communications official making the rounds of Indian newspapers and displaying natty little cellphone-like instruments which he said would be Iridium’s answer to the suitcase-sized Inmarsat phones that were the only satellite-linked alternative then.
In India, a consortium led by IDBI but steered by Deepak Parekh and Ravi Parthasarathy (then chairman and vice-chairman respectively of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services) was put together to invest $70 million in Iridium LLC and a further Rs 126.09 crore for the gateway at Pune. It now turns out that the Indian institutions were victims of a well-orchestrated fraud—at least that is what they allege in a criminal complaint filed before the Pune magistrate a few months ago. Or is it that they are so overawed by the high-octane sales pitch of US companies that they turn credulous and commit themselves to totally one-sided contracts? We will know soon enough.
The Indian consortium had a five per cent stake and a seat on the board of directors of Iridium LLC and would set up the gateway. In fact, there was much huffing and puffing about the bureaucratic delay in granting permission for the gateway, which, Iridium had otherwise threatened to reallocate to China. As it happens, the Iridium phone, when it was finally launched, was nowhere near the dream that was sold to the world. Instead of a snazzy handset there was an embarrassing shoebox-sized phone, which had no chance of becoming the business executive’s favourite gizmo; instead it was sold as a communication tool for oil exploration rigs, archeological expeditions and military outfits stationed at remote locations.
Even that market was difficult to tap, because the phones and the calls made with it were far too expensive. Hence, it was no surprise that Iridium filed for bankruptcy in 1999, or, that India’s largest overseas investment had gone bust.
Now that Indian institutions have filed for criminal fraud, several interesting facts have spilled out, and they provide an interesting comparison between India’s experience with Motorola’s Iridium and Enron’s Dabhol Power Company. For starters, Dabhol was touted as the ‘largest foreign direct investment in India’ while Iridium was India’s largest investment overseas. Both Iridium LLC and Enron filed for bankruptcy, but for entirely different reasons.
Like Enron, Iridium’s parent Motorola is among America’s most respected companies. Both Iridium and Dabhol had large and disastrous investments by Indian financial institutions and in both cases, the US companies wrote themselves gold plated deals and one-sided contracts. Enron’s sweetheart deal involved a change in India’s electricity policy, and eliminated all its business risk through multiple payment guarantees. It also got itself several lucrative contracts such as the fuel supply deal and the operations & maintenance (O&M) contract giving it a separate income stream.
Its two US partners—GE Capital and Bechtel—got themselves equipment supply deals and Maharashtra was left tied to an unviable project, largely funded by Indian institutions who have even guaranteed the loans by US banks and institutions.
Look at the similarity between this and the allegations made by Indian institutions against Iridium. They say that Motorola promoted Iridium LLC, only to use the project for ‘developing new technology at other people’s cost’. Also, while a global consortium of countries invested in the equity and gateway projects, Motorola allegedly raked in the moolah. It pocketed a hefty $6.5 billion as payments from Iridium LLC.
As against its equity investment of a mere $315 million, it earned $3.68 billion in equipment supply contracts etc at ‘artificially high prices’. Like in the Dabhol case, it cornered the O&M contract, the terrestrial network development contract and the space system contract at Iridium LLC.
This ensured that Motorola began to recover its money right at the beginning irrespective of whether or not the Iridium experiment worked. Further, its contracts with Iridium were not only ‘exorbitant’, but were structured in such a way that although ‘Iridium paid all the development costs, the most valuable assets of the system would still be owned by Motorola’.
Moreover, Motorola had protected itself by quietly using various debt and equity raising exercises to discharge third party guarantees that it had provided to Iridium LLC, in order to attract global investment. If this sounds astounding today, it is a pity that the Indian investors never realised what was going on during their umpteen trips abroad to tie up the deal. The institutions say that they later discovered that ‘the Iridium system was a complete failure and all the material representations made… were totally false, dishonest, fraudulent and deceitful’ and to the knowledge of Motorola officials.
In fact, the Motorola board had rejected a proposal to fund the development of Iridium on its own in the early 1990s. Far from processing fax and data, the constellation of satellites could not even generate signals that could be picked up inside buildings or in automobiles. Further, the gateway costing Rs 126 crore was a completely unnecessary and a waste (since the system itself did not work). Motorola allegedly knew that ‘the Iridium system could be operated through a single gateway and that other gateways were not absolutely necessary’. It only created the ‘subterfuge’ of the need for gateways in order to obtain licenses to operate Iridium in countries such as India.
Indian investors allege, that Motorola had become aware that Iridium was a disaster well before the commercial launch, but it suppressed this fact and ‘concealed the shortcomings’ to ‘induce’ investors to keep pumping money into the system even faster. The question is what next? When Indian investors demanded $250 million to make good the losses, Motorola slapped a counter demand on them of $6.9 million.
Undoubtedly Motorola will fight aggressively to protect itself. However, this led to the filing of a criminal complaint at Pune where again Motorola ignored the summons served on itself and its top brass. It now remains to be seen what role the Indian government will play in helping Indian institutions (the list includes IDBI, ICICI, HDFC, UTI, SBI, LIC, GIC, Exim Bank of India and IL&FS) recover their money.
If vice-president Dick Cheney and various US Ambassadors could aggressively push the Enron deal, can India do the same? Will the Indian government and its politicians stand up for its institutions without any strings attached? The next few months will demonstrate how good we are at protecting our national interest.
http://www.suchetadalal.com/articles/display/80/161.article
Iridium was Motorola’s dream experiment, which envisaged 66 artificial satellites girdling the globe and connecting up with terrestrial systems to zap calls to user telephones anywhere on earth. I remember Iridium’s slick talking communications official making the rounds of Indian newspapers and displaying natty little cellphone-like instruments which he said would be Iridium’s answer to the suitcase-sized Inmarsat phones that were the only satellite-linked alternative then.
In India, a consortium led by IDBI but steered by Deepak Parekh and Ravi Parthasarathy (then chairman and vice-chairman respectively of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services) was put together to invest $70 million in Iridium LLC and a further Rs 126.09 crore for the gateway at Pune. It now turns out that the Indian institutions were victims of a well-orchestrated fraud—at least that is what they allege in a criminal complaint filed before the Pune magistrate a few months ago. Or is it that they are so overawed by the high-octane sales pitch of US companies that they turn credulous and commit themselves to totally one-sided contracts? We will know soon enough.
The Indian consortium had a five per cent stake and a seat on the board of directors of Iridium LLC and would set up the gateway. In fact, there was much huffing and puffing about the bureaucratic delay in granting permission for the gateway, which, Iridium had otherwise threatened to reallocate to China. As it happens, the Iridium phone, when it was finally launched, was nowhere near the dream that was sold to the world. Instead of a snazzy handset there was an embarrassing shoebox-sized phone, which had no chance of becoming the business executive’s favourite gizmo; instead it was sold as a communication tool for oil exploration rigs, archeological expeditions and military outfits stationed at remote locations.
Even that market was difficult to tap, because the phones and the calls made with it were far too expensive. Hence, it was no surprise that Iridium filed for bankruptcy in 1999, or, that India’s largest overseas investment had gone bust.
Now that Indian institutions have filed for criminal fraud, several interesting facts have spilled out, and they provide an interesting comparison between India’s experience with Motorola’s Iridium and Enron’s Dabhol Power Company. For starters, Dabhol was touted as the ‘largest foreign direct investment in India’ while Iridium was India’s largest investment overseas. Both Iridium LLC and Enron filed for bankruptcy, but for entirely different reasons.
Like Enron, Iridium’s parent Motorola is among America’s most respected companies. Both Iridium and Dabhol had large and disastrous investments by Indian financial institutions and in both cases, the US companies wrote themselves gold plated deals and one-sided contracts. Enron’s sweetheart deal involved a change in India’s electricity policy, and eliminated all its business risk through multiple payment guarantees. It also got itself several lucrative contracts such as the fuel supply deal and the operations & maintenance (O&M) contract giving it a separate income stream.
Its two US partners—GE Capital and Bechtel—got themselves equipment supply deals and Maharashtra was left tied to an unviable project, largely funded by Indian institutions who have even guaranteed the loans by US banks and institutions.
Look at the similarity between this and the allegations made by Indian institutions against Iridium. They say that Motorola promoted Iridium LLC, only to use the project for ‘developing new technology at other people’s cost’. Also, while a global consortium of countries invested in the equity and gateway projects, Motorola allegedly raked in the moolah. It pocketed a hefty $6.5 billion as payments from Iridium LLC.
As against its equity investment of a mere $315 million, it earned $3.68 billion in equipment supply contracts etc at ‘artificially high prices’. Like in the Dabhol case, it cornered the O&M contract, the terrestrial network development contract and the space system contract at Iridium LLC.
This ensured that Motorola began to recover its money right at the beginning irrespective of whether or not the Iridium experiment worked. Further, its contracts with Iridium were not only ‘exorbitant’, but were structured in such a way that although ‘Iridium paid all the development costs, the most valuable assets of the system would still be owned by Motorola’.
Moreover, Motorola had protected itself by quietly using various debt and equity raising exercises to discharge third party guarantees that it had provided to Iridium LLC, in order to attract global investment. If this sounds astounding today, it is a pity that the Indian investors never realised what was going on during their umpteen trips abroad to tie up the deal. The institutions say that they later discovered that ‘the Iridium system was a complete failure and all the material representations made… were totally false, dishonest, fraudulent and deceitful’ and to the knowledge of Motorola officials.
In fact, the Motorola board had rejected a proposal to fund the development of Iridium on its own in the early 1990s. Far from processing fax and data, the constellation of satellites could not even generate signals that could be picked up inside buildings or in automobiles. Further, the gateway costing Rs 126 crore was a completely unnecessary and a waste (since the system itself did not work). Motorola allegedly knew that ‘the Iridium system could be operated through a single gateway and that other gateways were not absolutely necessary’. It only created the ‘subterfuge’ of the need for gateways in order to obtain licenses to operate Iridium in countries such as India.
Indian investors allege, that Motorola had become aware that Iridium was a disaster well before the commercial launch, but it suppressed this fact and ‘concealed the shortcomings’ to ‘induce’ investors to keep pumping money into the system even faster. The question is what next? When Indian investors demanded $250 million to make good the losses, Motorola slapped a counter demand on them of $6.9 million.
Undoubtedly Motorola will fight aggressively to protect itself. However, this led to the filing of a criminal complaint at Pune where again Motorola ignored the summons served on itself and its top brass. It now remains to be seen what role the Indian government will play in helping Indian institutions (the list includes IDBI, ICICI, HDFC, UTI, SBI, LIC, GIC, Exim Bank of India and IL&FS) recover their money.
If vice-president Dick Cheney and various US Ambassadors could aggressively push the Enron deal, can India do the same? Will the Indian government and its politicians stand up for its institutions without any strings attached? The next few months will demonstrate how good we are at protecting our national interest.
http://www.suchetadalal.com/articles/display/80/161.article
India does not need dynasticism
There is no law in the world which says that a politician should not let his wife, son or grandson take over from where he left. Hillary Clinton wants to be President, following the two-term career of her husband Bill. History is full of instances where politics has been a family tradition, whether in the United Kingdom or the United States, two of the best known democracies.
True, great names like Churchill, Disraeli or Gladstone in England or Lincoln in the United States did not have family members to succeed them in the Prime Ministerial or presidential gadi.
The Pitts in England may have been an exception. In the US there have been two Roosevelts, Theodore and Franklin, but they were not so closely related. There have been two other such instances in US history and in recent times we have had two George Bushes, father and son as Presidents, but one has never heard of a dynastic succession such as we have seen in India since 1947. Had Robert Kennedy not been assassinated he might - just might - have become President of the US like his elder brother John F. Their younger brother, Edward, has been a Senator, but his political ambitions stopped there.
By and large, some of our great leaders of the past have kept their sons and daughters away from politics. Of the Mahatma's sons, only Devadas Gandhi was - but only distantly - in political life as editor of Hindustan Times. None of the successors of, say, Dr Rajendra Prasad, C Rajagopalachari, Dr Radhakrishnan, Dr Ambedkar, the Bose brothers or B G Kher in Maharashtra followed in their elders' footsteps.
It is claimed that things are changing and mention is made of the progeny of Deve Gowda, Karunanidhi, Chautala, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Vasundhara Raje, not to mention Sheikh Abdullah. Gopala Krishna Gandhi, grandson of the Mahatma, is Governor of West Bengal, who would probably make as good a Prime Minister as any, but he has shown no indication of getting into pro-active politics. That by itself is no big deal; but it is only when a descendant of a well-known family makes extraordinary claims about his forebears that one feels sick in the stomach and wants to throw up.
Rahul Gandhi is not a child, though he has been behaving like one. The remarks attributed to him not only indicate a total sense of immaturity, but what is worse, an arrogance that is unacceptable. Nobody would question either the patriotic fervour or sense of dedication of the Nehrus, starting with Motilal. Had his son Jawaharlal not received his education in England, but had merely graduated from an Indian University, he would probably never had much to fall back upon, considering that as a lawyer, he was a failure. But those were colonial days and an England-returned had a glamour about him that fascinated even the Mahatma who took Jawaharlal under his wings, in part because of pressure from Nehru Senior.
It is open to question whether Vallabhai Patel would have been a better Prime Minister. Certainly, only Vallabhai could have brought the Indian Princes to heel, including the Nizam of Hyderabad. After Asoka, credit for uniting one India should go only to him. His son Dahyabhai could at most aspire to membership of Parliament, but poor Dahyabhai has long been forgotten. This is not to belittle Nehru's immense contribution to the freedom struggle or the many years of imprisonment he underwent for which the nation cannot be sufficiently grateful to him.
There were times when he was even in financial difficulties and Gandhi had to ask him whether he would like to become the Allahabad correspondent of the then prevailing nationalist paper, The Bombay Chronicle, to sustain himself. Gandhi was willing to seek the support of the paper's distinguished editor, Syed Abdullah Brelvi. And that is on record. Through his leanings to the Left, as was then the fashion, Jawaharlal's efforts to impose a Socialistic Pattern of Society on India proved disastrous and his taking the Kashmir issue to the Security Council turned to be a monumental error for which the country is still paying. True, there is so much he has done that is not only praiseworthy but calls for the country's adulation which, in any way, he received in substantial measure. Even the Non-Aligned Movement of which he was a founding father along with others like Nasser, Tito and Sukarno evokes admiration.
But one has to judge a man all in all and not merely on his plus and negative points. The same needs to be said of Indira Gandhi, She often played her cards well but the concessions she made to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto at the Simla Talks, following the end of the Bangladesh War showed poor understanding of real politic. Bhutto was an unprincipled India-hater and at Simla India could have resolved the Kashmir issue once and for all. But she made a colossal error in trying to be gracious and magnanimous.
One can lay the blame on her principal adviser, P N Naksar, but there is no denying the fact that she let go Bhutto cheaply and let down India badly.
We can forget the Emergency. It merely was indicative of the poor advice she received not only from her brash son Sanjay, but from sycophantic advisers, for which she paid dearly. She played the communal card just as carelessly and ruthlessly in Punjab with what results is everybody's knowledge. She may have wished to partition Pakistan - who, in India, wouldn't have, given the circumstances? - but to say that it was the Nehru-Gandhi genius that was responsible for it not only shows as abysmal ignorance of events but a total lack of tact.
Only someone suffering from a massive dose of self-delusion would have made the kind of remarks unbecoming of a Nehru descendant. This country can do without such adolescent behaviour. If this be the kind of leadership that Congress wants to sponsor, God save us. The tragedy is that the Congress is bereft of any vision.
It is therefore falling back on dynasticism. All its much-hyped ideas and concepts have failed - and that, too, miserably. Socialistic pattern of society, garibi hatao have become standard jokes. What garibi did Indira Gandhi hatao? It was not the Gandhi family which liberated Indian economy from fancy concept but it was Narasimha Rao, with the support of Dr Manmohan Singh, who did it after Rajiv Gandhi took India to the edge of financial bankruptcy.
Rajiv Gandhi's unplanned foray against the LTTE was responsible for huge losses in the Indian Army which was forced to beat a precipitate retreat somewhat shamefacedly. And what Congress leaders did following the assassination of Mrs Gandhi needs no reiteration. The earth indeed shook with the wholesale killings of innocent Sikh men, women and children. It is sad to see Dr Manmohan Singh certifying to Rahul Gandhi's leadership qualities - such as they are. But if Rahul needs further education on his family's great deeds, he may wish to read two volumes written by B N Tandon entitled PMO Diary I and II. It may help the young man to come down to earth. India has plenty of men and women of quality and character for the Congress to fall back on. It does not have to depend on the Nehru dynasty to lead the country to more disasters.
The bane of Indian society today is dynasticism and casteism. Haven't we gone beyond feudal concepts of Maharajahs where a ruler is succeeded by his son and so on till eternity come?
http://www.newstodaynet.com/guest/3004gu1.htm
True, great names like Churchill, Disraeli or Gladstone in England or Lincoln in the United States did not have family members to succeed them in the Prime Ministerial or presidential gadi.
The Pitts in England may have been an exception. In the US there have been two Roosevelts, Theodore and Franklin, but they were not so closely related. There have been two other such instances in US history and in recent times we have had two George Bushes, father and son as Presidents, but one has never heard of a dynastic succession such as we have seen in India since 1947. Had Robert Kennedy not been assassinated he might - just might - have become President of the US like his elder brother John F. Their younger brother, Edward, has been a Senator, but his political ambitions stopped there.
By and large, some of our great leaders of the past have kept their sons and daughters away from politics. Of the Mahatma's sons, only Devadas Gandhi was - but only distantly - in political life as editor of Hindustan Times. None of the successors of, say, Dr Rajendra Prasad, C Rajagopalachari, Dr Radhakrishnan, Dr Ambedkar, the Bose brothers or B G Kher in Maharashtra followed in their elders' footsteps.
It is claimed that things are changing and mention is made of the progeny of Deve Gowda, Karunanidhi, Chautala, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Vasundhara Raje, not to mention Sheikh Abdullah. Gopala Krishna Gandhi, grandson of the Mahatma, is Governor of West Bengal, who would probably make as good a Prime Minister as any, but he has shown no indication of getting into pro-active politics. That by itself is no big deal; but it is only when a descendant of a well-known family makes extraordinary claims about his forebears that one feels sick in the stomach and wants to throw up.
Rahul Gandhi is not a child, though he has been behaving like one. The remarks attributed to him not only indicate a total sense of immaturity, but what is worse, an arrogance that is unacceptable. Nobody would question either the patriotic fervour or sense of dedication of the Nehrus, starting with Motilal. Had his son Jawaharlal not received his education in England, but had merely graduated from an Indian University, he would probably never had much to fall back upon, considering that as a lawyer, he was a failure. But those were colonial days and an England-returned had a glamour about him that fascinated even the Mahatma who took Jawaharlal under his wings, in part because of pressure from Nehru Senior.
It is open to question whether Vallabhai Patel would have been a better Prime Minister. Certainly, only Vallabhai could have brought the Indian Princes to heel, including the Nizam of Hyderabad. After Asoka, credit for uniting one India should go only to him. His son Dahyabhai could at most aspire to membership of Parliament, but poor Dahyabhai has long been forgotten. This is not to belittle Nehru's immense contribution to the freedom struggle or the many years of imprisonment he underwent for which the nation cannot be sufficiently grateful to him.
There were times when he was even in financial difficulties and Gandhi had to ask him whether he would like to become the Allahabad correspondent of the then prevailing nationalist paper, The Bombay Chronicle, to sustain himself. Gandhi was willing to seek the support of the paper's distinguished editor, Syed Abdullah Brelvi. And that is on record. Through his leanings to the Left, as was then the fashion, Jawaharlal's efforts to impose a Socialistic Pattern of Society on India proved disastrous and his taking the Kashmir issue to the Security Council turned to be a monumental error for which the country is still paying. True, there is so much he has done that is not only praiseworthy but calls for the country's adulation which, in any way, he received in substantial measure. Even the Non-Aligned Movement of which he was a founding father along with others like Nasser, Tito and Sukarno evokes admiration.
But one has to judge a man all in all and not merely on his plus and negative points. The same needs to be said of Indira Gandhi, She often played her cards well but the concessions she made to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto at the Simla Talks, following the end of the Bangladesh War showed poor understanding of real politic. Bhutto was an unprincipled India-hater and at Simla India could have resolved the Kashmir issue once and for all. But she made a colossal error in trying to be gracious and magnanimous.
One can lay the blame on her principal adviser, P N Naksar, but there is no denying the fact that she let go Bhutto cheaply and let down India badly.
We can forget the Emergency. It merely was indicative of the poor advice she received not only from her brash son Sanjay, but from sycophantic advisers, for which she paid dearly. She played the communal card just as carelessly and ruthlessly in Punjab with what results is everybody's knowledge. She may have wished to partition Pakistan - who, in India, wouldn't have, given the circumstances? - but to say that it was the Nehru-Gandhi genius that was responsible for it not only shows as abysmal ignorance of events but a total lack of tact.
Only someone suffering from a massive dose of self-delusion would have made the kind of remarks unbecoming of a Nehru descendant. This country can do without such adolescent behaviour. If this be the kind of leadership that Congress wants to sponsor, God save us. The tragedy is that the Congress is bereft of any vision.
It is therefore falling back on dynasticism. All its much-hyped ideas and concepts have failed - and that, too, miserably. Socialistic pattern of society, garibi hatao have become standard jokes. What garibi did Indira Gandhi hatao? It was not the Gandhi family which liberated Indian economy from fancy concept but it was Narasimha Rao, with the support of Dr Manmohan Singh, who did it after Rajiv Gandhi took India to the edge of financial bankruptcy.
Rajiv Gandhi's unplanned foray against the LTTE was responsible for huge losses in the Indian Army which was forced to beat a precipitate retreat somewhat shamefacedly. And what Congress leaders did following the assassination of Mrs Gandhi needs no reiteration. The earth indeed shook with the wholesale killings of innocent Sikh men, women and children. It is sad to see Dr Manmohan Singh certifying to Rahul Gandhi's leadership qualities - such as they are. But if Rahul needs further education on his family's great deeds, he may wish to read two volumes written by B N Tandon entitled PMO Diary I and II. It may help the young man to come down to earth. India has plenty of men and women of quality and character for the Congress to fall back on. It does not have to depend on the Nehru dynasty to lead the country to more disasters.
The bane of Indian society today is dynasticism and casteism. Haven't we gone beyond feudal concepts of Maharajahs where a ruler is succeeded by his son and so on till eternity come?
http://www.newstodaynet.com/guest/3004gu1.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)