On open letters and media ethics
Posted by Raju Narisetti on Tuesday, December 23, 2008Readers of this Romantic Realist are used to seeing a lot of posts on Indian media. Since there is now some published debate on this particular issue, I thought it might be interesting to post this open clarification that ran on the front page of Mint on 22 December in relation to a previous “Open Letter” by an unnamed IAS officer that had run in Mint.
((And once you have read the Mint article(s) below, feel free to read a different view from a signed Raisina Hill column by Business Standard newspaper’s No. 2 editor AK Bhattacharya on 23 December in defense of P Chidambaram, saying the IAS officer in question was not only “disloyal” and “a coward” but also “tactless” here. Mr. Bhattacharya discusses the rules that govern IAS officers and concludes that “as long as the rules remain in force, not following them would encourage anarchy.” He does make a distinction between media “talking” to anonymous officers and an IAS officer “writing”. But if Business Standard’s top editors believe, as seems to be the case in this column, that a rule that bars all officers from “writing any article or expressing any view that is critical of the government or policies” should be adhered to because it exists, and because not doing so can cause “anarchy,” the Romantic Realist is typically more curious as to what internal code of conduct then governs the daily use of anonymous often “critical of government” quotes from cabinet ministers, IAS officers or senior-most Planning Commission officials in the paper. Most of them presumably have similar restrictions but are cited regularly in Business Standard (and all other papers in India including Mint) as well. Unless, that is, this introspection applies only to conduct of rival papers though, in the typically amusing way of most Indian newspapers, the column can’t seem bring itself to acknowledge another paper by name. The column only refers to the whole saga in Mint as stemming from an article published in an unnamed: “a newspaper”!)
An open clarification about an ‘Open Letter’
In a Lok Sabha discussion on India’s economic slowdown on 18 December, Ananth Kumar, a four-term member of Lok Sabha representing India’s main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), from the Bangalore South constituency, quoted a Mint Views page article, titled An open letter to the PM, which ran on our editorial pages on 10 December.
The article, which ran under the “Their Views” folio, a page where outside, non-Mint contributors write, ran under the byline of Athreya, who was then identified at the end of the article as: “The author is an IAS officer. The views expressed here are personal.”
In his parliamentary response to Kumar’s statements, P. Chidambaram, the former Indian finance minister and now minister of home affairs, had this to say about the article published in Mint:
“He (Kumar) cited an article allegedly written by an IAS officer. I have read the article. I do not know whether the name of that author given in that article is a true name or a pseudo name. I do not know whether he is an IAS officer. All I know is either he is a disloyal officer or a coward or both. If he had the courage, he should write the letter, sign in his own name and send it to the Prime Minister. But I hope they (BJP) do not encourage such officers; they did not encourage them when they were in power. So what is the point of citing a pseudonymous or anonymous author’s article taking shelter under it and running away when the reply is to be delivered?”
(Source: Parliament’s official reporters’ draft transcript. Read the full Kumar speech and Chidambaram reply here)
Since, on the floor of India’s Parliament, Chidambaram has raised questions about an article published in Mint and since his comments will remain a matter of public record forever, we would like to clarify some facts for our readers as well as the minister.
Mint does not lie to its readers or knowingly mislead them. Period.
Athreya is the pen name, or a literary pseudonym, that the author of that article requested. And, as unambiguously stated at the end of the article by Mint’s editors, he is indeed an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer and the views expressed in that article were the officer’s personal views.
Mint’s journalism is governed by a clearly spelt out Code of Journalistic Conduct that all news employees are required to adhere to. While most of it applies to our “news” coverage and not the paper’s opinion pages, we would still like to reiterate a key tenet from its preamble on What We Stand For:
“In our society, the press enjoys a remarkable degree of freedom. With that freedom comes the responsibility to practise our craft in accordance with the highest standards, to be accountable for what we publish, and to avoid conflicts of interest. We will strive to fulfil these responsibilities… It means we will always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information-not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable.”
Indeed, in our news coverage, Mint’s code doesn’t even allow the use of “pseudonyms, composite characters or fictional names…”
While these guidelines apply to our news coverage, the specific opinion page article in question was internally discussed between Mint’s editorial pages editor and the editor of Mint. Because the author’s proposed article raised significant and valid questions to spur a national debate, and precisely because the author is from the IAS, a group of Indians charged with managing the affairs of our country, a decision was made by the editor to run the article but let our readers know that it was by an IAS officer so they can appreciate the context.
We encourage our readers-and Chidambaram-to review our code, which is available on Mint’s Internet home page under “Mint code” at www.livemint.com.
We understand it is the prerogative of those who follow media ethics and standards to potentially debate our editorial decision-making. And Mint is happy to measure itself against any prevailing practices or standards that exist in India’s print media today, and our journalistic track record so far, especially our policy of promptly correcting any errors we make. We would encourage such a healthy debate because our decision is based on bedrock principles that Mint strives to “serve as an unbiased and clear-minded chronicler of the Indian Dream”.
We hope this explanation helps our readers get complete clarity on this issue. And, since this debate, spurred by the publication of the open letter, is an opinion on matters of national importance, we would now like to join the debate.
It is Chidambaram’s prerogative to not address the issues raised in the open letter or the reasons why the BJP’s Kumar cited it in the first place, and focus on whether the author should have been more loyal in not writing it at all or had more courage in signing it and sending it directly to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Here, Mint would like to remind Chidambaram of the long tradition of anonymous articles, starting with this particular example.
In November 1937, the Modern Review, then India’s most well-regarded journal of opinion, published an article on Jawaharlal Nehru written by Chanakya, an obvious pseudonym. The author hit out at Nehru’s latent dictatorial tendencies and his “intolerance for others and a certain contempt for the weak and inefficient”. Its author warned: “Jawaharlal might fancy himself as a Caesar.” There were howls of protest from loyalists until it was revealed much later that Nehru himself was the author of this piece.
Today, many members of Parliament, including cabinet colleagues of Chidambaram, as well as IAS officers in both the finance ministry as well as the home ministry, often insist on speaking to the news media only anonymously on many issues, including key issues that the author of the open letter raised. Whether all of those conversations are disloyal or cowardly is up to the minister to judge.
But if Chidambaram wants to help change the pervasive culture of anonymous comment that is so prevalent among politicians and bureaucrats alike, he might be better off publicly encouraging opinions and debate, rather than label those who try to speak up, even if anonymously, as “disloyal” or “cowards” and thus add to the culture of a fear of reprisals and, thus, more anonymity.
Mint, for one, believes being critical about India isn’t the same as being negative, as the government would like us to believe, and the only way our nation would progress is if there is honest debate about issues confronting all of us.
So what we would have hoped for is that, if the Indian government wanted to engage the nation on the basis of issues, including those raised in the open letter, it would have responded to the issues and not diverted attention to the act of writing the article. But that too is the prerogative of the Prime Minister’s Office.
Meanwhile, because of the now extensive debate this opinion article has raised -visit www.livemint.com/lettertopm.htm for reader comments on the article-we are also republishing the entire piece below (blog readers can read the original open letter here) and welcome comments from our readers at feedback@livemint.com. Raju Narisetti, Editor
Filed under Uncategorized · Tagged with
I say, five cheers to both the IAS and Mint for publishing that article. Lungi Master and PM’s bhat-charans (apologists) in our English media (see article showering abuse on the IAS Officer in another pink paper) are piqued because the IAS man did what our media should have done, that is, put spotlight on PM, who should be held responsible for all that has been happening on the terror front under HIS watch, and not showr abuse only on the poor Patil. But, sadly, that has been totally absent from comments in most of our papers. And, the IAS Man had the gall to do that. Thank you, Raju and Mint.
This note is not focussing on validating the point of view expressed by Mr.Atreya.
I believe, we got to apply the same yardstick, as applicable toa Cabinet Minister. As a private citizen one is free to voice his/her opinion overtly / covertly. But the moment somebody becomes part of the government, and if he/she holds such strong views against the Govt. / PM he should have the integrity to do it at appropriate forums. What if the author “Athreya” is part of PMO /Home Ministry. With such strong views close to his heart, can public expect him to implement PM’s /Govt policy sincerely (Whatever the policy is!).
To be honest, the article appeared to have written by a Chandan Mitra / Tarun Vijay / Swapandas Gupta rather than a IAS Officer.
I agree that Finance Minister Chidambaram is part of, and indeed propagating the culture of fear among IAS officers with his comments about being disloyal and cowardly. People have a right to view articles written under a pseudonym with skepticism. Yet, I can’t help but thinking how different it would have been if Mr. Chidambaram had said all that he had said and then added something like… “that said, the writer of the column raising some valid issues that my government needs to address,” or something like that. Mr. Chidambaram has chosen to shoot the messenger and the author, but refuses ostrich-like to acknowledge the legitimate grievance that the article brings to fore. Perhaps Mr. Chidambaram is so used to his coterie of sycophants that he cannot recognize or digest a voice of dissonance. Point 2: As a journalist, kudos to Mint for protecting the author’s identity. He may not be Mark Felt and this may not (yet) bring down a government, but just as IAS officers are governed by a code, the press too has a pact that we make with our sources and authors. I doubt that Mint is going to reveal who Athreya is in spite of Mr. Chidambaram’s mean-spirited comments. And lastly, I wonder if Business Standard feels that its subscribers will change subscriptions if it names the competition rather than disingenuously referring to it as “a newspaper.” Amusing indeed!
Finance Minister Chidambaram is part of, and indeed propagating the culture of fear among IAS officers with his comments about being disloyal and cowardly. People have a right to view pseudonyms with skepticism. Yet, how different it would have been had Mr. Chidambaram said all that he has said and then added something like… “that said, the writer of the column raises some valid issues that my government needs to address,” or something like that. Mr. Chidambaram has chosen to shoot the messenger , but ostrich-like, refuses to acknowledge the legitimate grievances that the article brings to fore. Perhaps Mr. Chidambaram is so used to his coterie of sycophants that he cannot recognize or digest a voice of dissent. Point 2: Kudos to Mint for protecting the author’s identity. He may not quite be Deep Throat-Mark Felt, but just as IAS officers are governed by a code, the press too has a code to protect the identity its sources. And lastly, I wonder if Business Standard’s journalistic code prevents the naming of competition. A ‘newspaper’ indeed!
In the interests of full disclosure, Shoba Narayan, whose comment are above comment, writes a weekly column for Lounge, Mint’s weekend magazine. Raju Narisetti
In the interests of full disclosure, Shoba Narayan, whose comment are above this comment, writes a weekly column for Lounge, Mint’s weekend magazine. Raju Narisetti
I am absolutely flabbergasted at how wromg Mr Chidambaram has got it. Considering the fact that the ordinary Indian is just a step away from complete loss of faith in our bureacracy for carrying out any major policy initiative, this anonymous IAS officer actualy gives you hope that things could improve. That every single one of our ‘rulers’ is not corrupt through and through, and if not results, we can still hope for an effort from them. Mr Chidambaram has been a beneficiary of just such a perception, with his ‘reformist’ credentials, even though when it comes to real reform, his latest stint has had precious little to offer.
In fact, if there is a rule which forbids criticism, then the government will be doing everyone a favour by scrapping it. At least let us see that the bright minds who entered its service with some hopes have not been snuffed out altogether.
The biggest problem are the Indian journalists themselves. Chidambaram does not understand economics but speaks good English, but the Indian journalists confuse this with knowledge of Economics. He was a hardcore socialist for decades. The same is true of Manmohan Singh. He does not understand economics. He was an obedient Marxist until 1991, a person who obeyed PV Narasimha Rao from 1991 to 1995 and then became an obedient slave of Sonia Maino after that. He has gone back to his roots of being a Marxist again. The Indian hacks are too dumb to figure this out. All that Chidambaram does is shuffle taxes. That is not the same as working the economy. Read this article by Pulitzer Prize winner Kenneth COoper who figured all this out and that Chidambaram was basically a dyed-in-the-wool idiot – http://www.saveindia.com/kooper.htm .
Okay, I read the IAS officer’s letter and here is my view on him. His bashing of the coast guard, intelligence agencies and the navy are not acceptable. Reason: IAS officers are the BIGGEST failures in India. They cannot perform even simple tasks like laying roads, cleaning up garbage dumps and changing light bulbs. When he talks of getting the Mossad to train our forces, he displays his inferiority complex and most likely looks forward to a trip to Israel. No one trained the police to shoot down the Naxalites but they keep doing it. The defence forces have won wars. However, IAS officers have ZERO claims of success.
Mr. Nasseriti,
I read the letter,in fact i read the first few line of the letter and i thought it of bad taste.
A serving IAS or recently retired officer, should not express his views covertly or overtly in the media, it’s just in bad taste, and the people who leak things to the media “sources”, well they’re disloyal no doubt it as much as perhaps someone who accepts kickbacks but they’re instances like Deepthroat…. but from an establishment view,it is disloyal and cowardly. There is a word in the Mafia for it it’s called being a ’snitch’
Now why is it in bad taste? well because, one he is a serving IAS officer, serving the government, and criticizing the head of government in public is regrettable to say the least. Second, it might set a precedent, then am sure they’re proper channels and a forum to have his voice heard.
He starts by attacking the PM on a subject that has nothing to do with the administration of the government,if he wishes to identify himself as an IAS officer but wishes to hide behind a pen name, then he has no right to comment on the business of congress party as an IAS officer, he cannot comment publicly even if Manmohan Singh has agreed to become a puppet willingly or blackmailed Mrs Gandhi. It’s none of his business.
Simply like this, he loses credibility, surely this IAS man is angry and very emotional..but it wont be write of me calling him a fool, but he seems like one, does not mean i say ‘the fool got emotional and carried away’.
What case can he make with no credibility and integrity, and besides,after all the growling, the IAS man would realize he’s part of the system and he needs to take some of the blame and he could do something about it if he wanted to, or at least do something better than attack your head of government hiding behind a pen name in a newspaper…especially when the country is going through a difficult period and expects co-operation from all branches of the executive agent of the state.
Mr. Nasseriti if this is not dissent what is?
Vishy Sankara, Chandan Mitra / Tarun Vijay / Swapan Dasgupta do not need to write in a pen name. They do write – and do so bluntly – n their own name every week.
The loyalty of every Indian, specially the ones in positions of power, should be foremost to the country and not to a bunch of inept rulers. Imagine a thug like Sanjay Gandhi ruling us or Mulayam or Maya for that matter, with Aftab Ansari or Raja Bhaiya as minor ministers. How many IAS officers would have the nerve to start an internal debate at an ‘appropriate’ forum? Do you, even for a moment, believe Manmohan or Chidambaram would tolerate such criticism in a one-on-one meeting forget about a forum? Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. There is nothing wrong with this. Athreya has done well to put the spotlight where it should be – on the PM.
So, Athreya displayed his loyalty to the nation by bitching about his PM in open media space and behind a skirt, sorry i meant a pen name.
Make me understand that…he had nothing new to say but he’s part of the government and am sure ministers receive opinions from the bureaucrats all the time,if not every moment.
The government is the executive branch of the state, so if he’s being disloyal to the government, isn’t he disloyal to the state?
I don’t know how you think he expects to solve the problems he has raised by expressing them in media and please this is not a extraordinary measure….its quite goofy infact
KMN, tecnically what you say is correct. Wailing about the system while one is part of it should not be acceptable. However, in the Nehruvian-Stalinist state of India, when there were absolutely no other choices, one had to join a government job. So ‘Athreya’ would have nowhere else to go if he wanted another job. His case should be treated like that of a whistle-blower. What you need to understand is that Chidambaram is not at all smart and anyone who thinks that he is smart is also foolish because such a person confuses an ability to speak good English with knowledge of economics. The same is true of Manmohan Singh who lacks basic intelligence and was actually a Marxist at one time. So it is clear that he has no clue about economics. ‘Athreya’ is correct about Manmohan Singh. He was chosen because he would make a good puppet. I read elsewhere that he stands up in the presence of Sonia.
yes. I too agree that expression of views are very farmost important for any individual be it civil servent or a politician. some times, in our democratic society , we have to agree or disagree with the author is a different issue, but the so called IAS officer has to express his views on Govt policies or his opinions ‘on paper’to the concerned ,ie officially and later sent to newspapers for air his views ‘openly’ for ‘Public’.As a journalist in a telugu media, I too feel that, first, the IAS officer have a right to express his views ‘privately’ to the concerned and later open it public.if the code of journalism is so desire, the code of conduct for officer, in question is also desire.I appreciate, Mr. Raju narisetty for his ‘open ‘comments and commitment of journalism ethics. but I have my own doubts about the commitment of the so called author tagged IAS.
Mr. Raju narisetti, may express his opinion on my comment
Well PC is not dumb either…he might not be the smartest person to deal with finance or interior security…like today’s mint article on state’s ire on his letter…if the arrogant union home minister would have sent it as advisory instead of dictating the notes the situation could’ve been avoided.
But at the same part, if Athreya wanted to express his views he should’ve done it and handled the consequences…and its not the case of a whistle blower, Athreya’s not busting a racket or scam….just expressing his views and well should’ve been expressed in better ways..
What Athreya has said is not new. Everyone knows that. So Mint has not done anything great by publishing the article. I agree that PC saying something in Parliament is recorded. But, I (common man) dont really care what is recorded in the books of Parliament. Until you highlighted this point, I don’t think any of your subscribers knew that PC has mentioned Mint.
Mint went with a Page 1 editorial asking for Satyam Computer Services Chairman Ramalinga Raju to resign for one mistake that he did. But Mint did not ask for the resignation of UPA/Singh’s government for its failures in the last four and a half years. Not even after the terrorists attacks in Mumbai. Why did not Mint come out with a page 1 editorial asking for Singh’s resignation or dissolving of UPA government for failures in all fronts. Mint became the first Indian newspaper to support Obama for Presidency. Though I think it was waste of space for a newspaper with 100 per cent Indian readership. Why can’t Mint come out with a full page editorial highlighting the same points or more than what Athreya has said.
KMN, you said, “Well PC is not dumb either…” This is not true. He is a socialist and that is proof that he is dumb. PC is in fact the black sheep of his family which has contributed quite a bit to the Indian society.
Ganesh, why do you say Mint has not done anything great? It is a terrific change in the Indian media that such an article has been published. Indian media lacks the ethics and accountability found in the West. While the Western press may be biased and crooked in its own ways, once a journalist gets caught she or he is toast. They also follow some rules unlike the Indian media which is sold out. In this particular instance, what is great is that Mint has allowed an IAS officer to publish anonymously and honors its commitment to keep his name a secret. Had it been any of the other outlets (including HT), they would have squealed by now.
Mr Narisetti,
I was really surprised to read about your leaving editorship of Mint to become an occasional advisor to the paper. Whatever be the reason, I think congratulations are due for the standards and quality you introduced readers as well as your peer group to, and I trust HT media will stay the course with the same.
i have never written to any of Mr Narisetti’s posts till now, but feel the urge to do so this time around when he has moved on from Mint, a publication that he has created, nurtured and allowed to bloom in the manner that it has. more than anything else i think Mr Narisetti is due for a HUGE PAT ON THE BACK for bringing to this country (since he came from WSJ after working abroad for nearly 16 years) a brand of journalism that one has only heard about as a reader but never experienced. though it is going to be tough, going forward i sincerely hope that Mr Ranganathan and Mr Rajadhyaksha (i hope i got the spelling right!) will be able to carry forward the ideals, the values and the high levels of quality that MINT has achieved in the last 23 months that Mr Narisetti has been around at the top.
If i dare say Mr Narisetti, your wisdom, your open upright approach and your ability to call a spade a spade will be missed. i sincerely hope you will stay in this country (though i know any publication/organisation worldwide, not to talk about WSJ, would be only too glad to have with them) with the media and guide it to greater heights.
now just a few words (well more than a few words!) for all those who have written above in reply to this post, i have 3 submissions of my own and here they go:
1) it is very disturbing to see that most of the respondents have gone off on a tangent criticizing the IAS officer and MINT’s decision to carry the piece, but they have said very little (if anything at all) to the points raised by the bureaucrat. if the issues raised in the article are not valid i can understand that he is an ‘emotional fool’ but if they are valid should we not take serious cognizance of the facts and in-fact mount pressure on the government to act. as is usual with most of us many of the respondents seems to have lost sight of the issue and deflected their energies to other things. we as a nation need to focus on the right issue more… (apologies if i seem to be talking down)
2) it is also very alarming to see that a serving IAS officer should have to resort to expressing his concerns incognito for fear of reprisal. i do think it would be appropriate to assume that he (and i am assuming it is a he) has tried other ways at being ‘loyal and honest to his political masters’ by trying to bring up these issue with them, but has resorted to this public airing of his views as a last resort. i am sure even then, knowing how porous the media is ‘he’ would have thought twice, and probably more than that, before submitting this piece to MINT for publishing. honestly the home ministry would like to have the man hung drawn and quartered many times over. so instead of vilifying him i guess we should be concerned at the quality of governance that is being dished out where professionals within the ministries are not allowed to give their unbiased opinion without the fear of being reprimanded. i would strongly urge the readers of this post that this is the time to strengthen the hands of the bureaucrats and tell them to do what is best for the country and not what is best for their current political ringmaster. by criticizing them we are not helping them realize that they need to speak up for our good…
3) lastly i would like to draw everyone’s attention to the amazing job this blog and the paper in general has done by displaying guts to bring this and many such issue to the fore. we need to appreciate the forum this blog has presented and not crucify Mr Narisetti for being open about airing his opinions about various issues (muslims at work, female employees what not). I am sure i speak for many when i say that though you are probably going to disassociate yourself from leading the paper, we will have the joy of reading your posts (though probably of a different nature) in the future.
i sincerely hope other publications and editors (who i know secretly would also want to be able to do/say all that they admit in private) would take cue and do things that will give us readers reason to subscribe to their papers and help them notch up genuine IRS and NRS figures. i also sincerely hope this mess with the government is not why Mr Narisetti is moving on, because it it were so, we all can kiss this blog and many good things that this paper promises good bye.
i would like to end believing that Mr Narisetti is moving on to create another publication (or even guide a current one) to perform ‘lighthouse journalism rather than lamppost journalism’.
Mr Narisetti tell me i am right!!
committed MR!
ps: i am writing with a pseudonym, like the bureaucrat, as i too would like him want to experience the facelessness and remain so.
Arvind, Mint is definitely a good paper and it has set a benchmark in business journalism. I believe that and I am not challenging it. My reference was only towards Athreya’s article and not against the paper as such.
It came as a shock to me that Mr Narisetti is leaving. But, we, Mint readers, need a proper explanation on why Mr Narisetti is leaving? Mint has done some good reporting on other media. Now it is a test for Mint to report on itself.
Yash, Ganesh, Mr Narisetti’s leaving (or being forced to leave) is actually in the great HT tradition of forcing inconvenient editors out. Used to be a normal practice in 70’s! This is the second case of an editor, who dared to criticise the UPA deities, being shown the door (Mr MJ Akbar met the same fate earlier). And, all this in the regime of the supposedly democratic, secular Congress!
It is indeed very sad to hear that Mr narisetti had to leave for printing a bold article. Over the past few years, we have seen most mainstream media (both print and electronic) loath to criticizing the congress. I never imagined that the freedom of the press was this bad in India. The only silver lining to the HT group in this episode might be that Shobana Bhartiya might get one of the padma awards like the other Congress kissers like Rajdeep and Barkha.
Raju,
Love your insightful and the good trouble-making posts. We love you and we think you were forced out by the Congress govt. What can we do to show our displeasure?
- Stop buying Mint?
- Write to the editor?
- Or other?
Please advise.
I am sure you will find greener pastures whereever you chose to go next. We wish you luck and look forwards to your continued posts. Keep up the good work. India needs you my friend!
Wonder if P Chidambaram thinks that Antulay is also “disloyal” and “tactless”?
In the light of recent announcement, perhaps the viewpoint “Listen to the home minister” should be taken with a pinch of salt…
For all those who recommend that IAS officers should not use anonymity, kindly refresh your memory about Satyendra Dubey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Dubey)
If the PM’s office cannot ensure confidentiality, it makes no sense for any IAS officer(who is not a brave fool) to speak/write without anonymity.
Well, Livemint’s loss is the Washington Post’s gain. India’s loss is once again, America’s gain. Where is all the much-hyped progress if an editor of this stature and integrity leaves over a piece of honest opinion? Also, the fact is that not a single person is arguing the veracity of Athreya’s charges – everyone knows the truth, but….!!!!
All the best in your future endeavours. We will miss a thoughtful writer and urge you to continue your contribution
Gaspar Almeida (Parra, Goa/Kuwait)
Associate, http://www.goa-world.com
Moderator, Gulf Goans e-Newsletter
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/gulf-goans/