The relations between India and Pakistan have always experienced the Low and High degrees with later offering strategic dialogue with full support from the People of Pakistan while the former remained aggressive showing utmost hostility and acrimony due to extremist forces within their country. The arch-rival India has never trusted Pakistan despite assurances and this mistrust has affected their bilateral relations given the existing circumstances.
With extensive relations with the world especially Pakistan’s best friend China, India’s atrocities in Indian occupied Kashmir have been intensified with the passage of time. The use of Chemical weapons and widespread human rights violations, defying the UN resolutions on Kashmir valley demanding a plebiscite, the Indian aggression has infinite boundaries.
Even Indian nefarious design did not stop here; they are planning to alter the article 35A of Indian Constitution to change the status of the State of Kashmir in a bid to change the disputed status of the territory. There are widespread protests in Jammu Kashmir against such move and the leaders of Kashmir Freedom movement are either detained or put on house arrest. The Indian Supreme court is hearing the case.
The constitutional provision of article 35A does not allow people from outside the state to buy or own immovable property, seeking permanent residence, avail any state-funded scholarships or get the government jobs. It also gives power to the state legislature to define “permanent” residents. Historically, the Article 35A was added by a Presidential order to Article 370, in 1954 that applied the independent status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Recently, a Delhi-based NGO “We the Citizens” had filed the petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging the articles 35A and 370. The application argued that the above-mentioned articles were discriminatory towards the citizens from the rest of India. The Chairman Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Former Chief Minister of State of Jammu and Kashmir Mehbooba Mufti has warned the Indian Government that any tinkering with the aforesaid articles will result igniting violence in the valley that will be beyond the control of the security agencies.
The people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir also condemned this move and demanded from the world community to intervene and exert their pressure on India to back out from such tampering with the said provision of the Indian constitution. The Islamabad’s policy statement sent a strong message to New Delhi to refrain from such the move as Pakistan will raise this issue at UN and other International forums to win support of the world community to force India change it’s desperate trying to abrogate the articles 35A and 370 which lay the basis of Disputed Territory and stops the outsiders from buying the immovable property or seeking citizenship to turn the Muslim majority into minority through temporary settlements that may weaken the claims of Pakistan on the claims of Muslim majority as per the Independence plan of 1947.
Pakistan has always fought a defensive war be it 1965, 1971 the fall of Dhaka, Kargil war and the subsequent heated war of words and the indiscriminate firing incidents on the Line of Control from the Indian side, resulting loss of civilians lives. Though Pakistan retaliates strongly yet Indians are the first to offend and harming the peace process .
The Political leadership remained divided over building close relations with India to maintain peace in the region. Both PPP and PML-N tried to have close relations with India and start the strategic dialogue with India and signed Confidence-building measures. PPP government remained close to Rajiv and Indira Gandhi’s Indian National Congress Government while PML-N leadership maintained close relations with BJP. Though both countries started the peace talks at Foreign Secretary level but given strong the pressure from militant or extremist forces, it was always India who cancelled the peace talks at the eleventh hour giving no solid reasons of such cancellation or rolling up dialogue process.
The blame game for internal involvement has brought them too far but the meaningful dialogue can bring them together once again. The great nations always settle their disputes through negotiation table as wars always bring misery to people and the destruction that takes years to rebuild the country’s infrastructure.
Both the Nuclear capable countries must think sensibly and restart the strategic dialogue to find a solution to the Kashmir problem and end the long rivalry that has created distrust and prompts them to have heavy defence budget rather than focusing on other sectors such as infrastructural development, Education, Health, trade, commerce, IT and Sports.
It is ironic that the enmity as has also gripped the cricket and the fans are disappointed due to the refusal of India playing the series with Pakistan within India and Pakistan or at the neutral venue such as UAE. Sporting events bring the people together and play a pivot role in the normalization of circumstances but regrettably, this option was also lost by India.
It is the twenty-first century; the world is developing rapidly with advancement in science technology especially in Communication Technologies. Both the neighbours can collaborate with each other to help boost IT infrastructure as both countries have strong IT Professionals since Indian IT experts heading the leading Software giants such as Microsoft, PayPal, Google and Yahoo.
The Prime of Pakistan had envisaged his vibrant and robust foreign policy during victory speech that he intended to maintain relations with the world such as Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arab, US and India on the equality basis and even offered India to come forward by one step, he will go forward two steps to start the dialogue on the core issues.
The talks at foreign minister level between the two countries were announced at UNGA but abruptly cancelled by India succumbing to internal pressure given the upcoming General Elections of India likely in May 2019.
Imran Khan lashed out India of being arrogant over the cancellation of talks at foreign Ministry level.
The ruling BJP eyes the 2019 General Elections and thus intended to create hype with their strong stance against Pakistan by cancelling the peace talks in order to get support from Indian people to win general elections 2019 and regain the Government for another term.
Well, India needs to change its attitude and should immediately start the dialogue to address the issues and find out peaceful solutions to the problem including the Kashmir issue by taking the Kashmiri Leadership on board. CPEC is a game changer for Pakistan and the region. The positive outcome of the peace talks may pave the way for India to benefit from the CPEC by joining CPEC as Partner.
Let the peace have a chance, let’s learn to live like good neighbours sharing our experiences and developing resources and promoting trade through people to people contacts. To pave the way for talks, India has to take initiatives such as ending atrocities in Kashmir, demilitarizing it and involving Kashmir leadership to find out a peaceful solution that may be acceptable to People of Jammu and Kashmir. Let the people of Kashmir decide their future.
Pakistan is ready to hold consequential talks and the Indian positive response is awaited to bid adieu to this long acrimony that has hampered peace process and bilateral trade ties between two strong nuclear powers. The SAARC forum can be instrumental for the countries to include SAARC member countries in CPEC provided that India does not backtrack from the Peace Process.
Henry Kissinger’s Death: What You Need to Know About His Legacy
Table of Contents
Henry Kissinger was a prominent figure in US foreign policy, serving as National Security Advisor under President Nixon and later as Secretary of State under President Ford. He was known for his controversial foreign policy decisions that left an indelible mark on US foreign policy. Kissinger passed away on November 30, 2023, at the age of 100, leaving behind a legacy that is both celebrated and criticized.
Early Life and Career
Henry Kissinger was born in Germany in 1923 and immigrated to the United States in 1938 to escape Nazi persecution. He attended Harvard University, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in political science and a doctorate in international relations. After completing his studies, Kissinger worked as a professor of government at Harvard and as a consultant to the US government on foreign policy issues.
Role in US Foreign Policy
Kissinger’s role in US foreign policy began in 1969 when he was appointed National Security Advisor by President Nixon. In this role, Kissinger played a key role in shaping US foreign policy during the Cold War. He was instrumental in negotiating the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) with the Soviet Union and in establishing diplomatic relations with China.
In 1973, Kissinger was appointed Secretary of State by President Ford. In this role, he continued to play a prominent role in shaping US foreign policy. He was involved in negotiations to end the Vietnam War and played a key role in the Middle East peace process.
Controversies and Criticisms
Despite his many accomplishments, Kissinger’s legacy is also marked by controversy. He has been accused of war crimes for his role in the US bombing campaign in Cambodia during the Vietnam War. He has also been criticized for his support of authoritarian regimes in Latin America and for his role in the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Chile and elsewhere.
Legacy and Impact
Despite the controversies surrounding his legacy, Kissinger’s impact on US foreign policy cannot be denied. He was a master of diplomacy and played a key role in shaping US foreign policy during a critical period in world history. His legacy continues to be debated, with some hailing him as a visionary and others condemning him as a war criminal.
In conclusion, Henry Kissinger was a complex figure whose legacy is both celebrated and criticized. He played a key role in shaping US foreign policy during a critical period in world history and his impact on US foreign policy cannot be denied. However, his legacy is also marked by controversy, and his role in some of the darker chapters of US foreign policy continues to be debated. Ultimately, the lessons that can be learned from Kissinger’s career are complex and multifaceted, and his legacy will continue to be debated for years to come.
The Challenges to “Two State and Combined State Solution” of Gaza Crisis: A Comprehensive Analysis
The Gaza Crisis has been ongoing for decades and has been a major source of conflict in the Middle East. The crisis has been characterized by violence, poverty, and political instability. The Two-State Solution has been proposed as a possible solution to the crisis. This solution involves the creation of two separate states, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians, living side by side in peace and security.
The historical background of the Gaza Crisis is complex and multifaceted. The conflict is rooted in the displacement of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948, and the subsequent occupation and annexation of Palestinian land by Israel. The crisis has been characterized by violence, poverty, and political instability. The Two-State Solution has been proposed as a possible solution to the crisis. This solution involves the creation of two separate states, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians, living side by side in peace and security.
Table of Contents
- The Two-State Solution has been proposed as a possible solution to the Gaza Crisis.
- The crisis has been ongoing for decades and is characterized by violence, poverty, and political instability.
- The historical background of the crisis is complex and multifaceted, rooted in the displacement of Palestinians during the creation of Israel in 1948.
Historical Background of Gaza Crisis
The Gaza Strip has been at the center of conflict between Israel and Palestine for decades. Understanding the historical background of the Gaza crisis is crucial in comprehending the current situation and potential solutions.
The Birth of Israel
The Gaza Strip was originally part of the British Mandate of Palestine, which was established after World War I. In 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition of the land into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs. The plan was accepted by the Jews, but rejected by the Arabs, who believed that the land belonged to them. In 1948, Israel declared its independence, and neighboring Arab countries invaded, starting the first Arab-Israeli War. The war resulted in Israel’s victory and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, including many who fled to the Gaza Strip.
Six Day War
In 1967, tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors escalated, leading to the Six Day War. Israel emerged victorious, occupying the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The occupation of the Gaza Strip led to the establishment of Israeli settlements and the displacement of more Palestinians.
First and Second Intifada
In 1987, the First Intifada began, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation. The uprising lasted six years and led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. In 2000, the Second Intifada began, after peace talks failed to reach a resolution. The violence resulted in the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis and the destruction of infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.
The historical background of the Gaza crisis is complex and multifaceted. The conflict has resulted in the displacement of thousands of Palestinians and has led to the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. Understanding this history is crucial in finding a lasting solution to the crisis.
Understanding the Two State Solution
Concept and Origin
The Two State Solution is a proposed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that aims to establish two separate states for the two nations. The concept of a two-state solution emerged in the 1930s and 1940s, when the British Mandate for Palestine was coming to an end. The idea was to divide the land between Jews and Arabs, with each group having their own independent state. The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution in 1947 that called for the partition of Palestine into two states, one for Jews and the other for Arabs. While the Jewish community accepted the resolution, the Arab states rejected it, and the ensuing conflict resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
Proposed Geographic Division
The proposed geographic division of the two-state solution would involve the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel would retain control over the remaining territories, including the settlements in the West Bank. The borders between the two states would be based on the pre-1967 borders, with some territorial swaps to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
The idea of a two-state solution has been the basis of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for decades. However, the negotiations have been fraught with difficulties, and a final agreement has yet to be reached. The ongoing conflict between the two sides, including the Gaza crisis, has made it increasingly difficult to achieve a two-state solution. Nevertheless, many still believe that a two-state solution is the best way to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.
In summary, the Two State Solution is a proposed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that aims to establish two separate states for the two nations. The proposed geographic division would involve the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. While the negotiations have been difficult, many believe that a two-state solution is the best way to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.
United Nations’ Stance
The United Nations has been a vocal advocate for a two-state solution to the Gaza crisis. In 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The UN has continued to support a two-state solution to the conflict, with the Security Council passing numerous resolutions calling for an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
United States’ Approach
The United States has historically been a key player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has long supported a two-state solution. In 2002, the US proposed the “Roadmap for Peace,” which outlined a series of steps to be taken by both Israelis and Palestinians to reach a two-state solution. However, the Trump administration in 2017 recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US embassy there, which was seen as a significant blow to the prospects of a two-state solution.
European Union’s Position
The European Union has also been a strong supporter of a two-state solution to the Gaza crisis. The EU has provided significant financial aid to the Palestinian Authority and has been involved in numerous peace talks between Israel and Palestine. In 2016, the EU issued a statement calling for a two-state solution and condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The EU has also been critical of the Trump administration’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, which it sees as a violation of international law.
Challenges to the Two State Solution
The Two State Solution has been proposed as a resolution to the Gaza Crisis, but it faces many challenges. These challenges are political, security-related, and economic.
One of the main challenges to the Two State Solution is the political disputes between Israel and Palestine. The two sides have different visions for the future of the region, and they have been unable to come to an agreement on how to move forward. The Palestinian leadership began seriously to consider a Two State Solution after the 1973 October War, but the solution faces insurmountable challenges given the current political climate.
Security concerns are another major challenge to the Two State Solution. Both Israel and Palestine have legitimate security concerns, and they are unwilling to compromise on these issues. The Gaza War of 2014 highlighted the security concerns of both sides, and it has made it even more difficult to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties.
Finally, economic hurdles are also a challenge to the Two State Solution. The Gaza Strip is one of the most impoverished regions in the world, and it is heavily dependent on foreign aid. The economic situation in the region is further complicated by the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. The lack of economic opportunities and the ongoing conflict have created a vicious cycle of poverty and violence in the region.
In conclusion, the Two State Solution faces many challenges, including political disputes, security concerns, and economic hurdles. These challenges must be addressed if there is to be a peaceful and just resolution to the Gaza Crisis.
Alternatives to the Two State Solution
While the Two State Solution has been the primary focus of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there have been alternative proposals put forward. Here are two potential alternatives:
One State Solution
The One State Solution proposes that Israel and Palestine should be combined into a single state. This state would be democratic and would allow for equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. Supporters of this solution argue that it would lead to a more peaceful and stable region, as it would eliminate the need for borders and would promote cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.
However, critics argue that this solution is not feasible, as it would require both sides to give up their national identities and would be difficult to implement in practice. Additionally, it is unclear how the rights of minority groups would be protected in a single state solution.
Another alternative to the Two State Solution is a Confederation Model. This model proposes that Israel and Palestine would each have their own separate governments, but would share certain institutions and cooperate on issues such as security and economic development. This solution would allow for greater autonomy for both sides, while still promoting cooperation and peace in the region.
Supporters of this model argue that it would allow for greater self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians, while still maintaining a level of cooperation that would promote stability in the region. However, critics argue that this solution would be difficult to implement in practice, as it would require both sides to give up a certain level of sovereignty and would require a high level of trust between the two governments.
Overall, while the Two State Solution has been the primary focus of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is important to consider alternative proposals that may lead to a more peaceful and stable region.
Impact on the Palestinian-Israeli Relations
The Gaza Crisis has had a significant impact on the Palestinian-Israeli relations. The conflict has been ongoing for decades, and the Gaza Crisis has added another layer of complexity to the issue. The following subsections detail the impact of the crisis on the Palestinian-Israeli relations.
The Gaza Crisis has had a devastating socio-economic impact on the Palestinian people. The conflict has resulted in widespread poverty, unemployment, and a lack of access to basic necessities such as food, water, and healthcare. According to a report by the United Nations, the poverty rate in Gaza is over 50%, and the unemployment rate is over 40%. The crisis has also resulted in the displacement of thousands of Palestinians, further exacerbating the socio-economic issues in the region.
The Gaza Crisis has also had a significant political impact on the Palestinian-Israeli relations. The conflict has led to a breakdown in communication between the two sides, making it difficult to reach a lasting peace agreement. The crisis has also led to an increase in tensions between the two sides, with both sides accusing the other of violating international law and committing human rights abuses.
In conclusion, the Gaza Crisis has had a profound impact on the Palestinian-Israeli relations. The crisis has worsened the socio-economic conditions in Gaza and has led to a breakdown in communication between the two sides. The political impact of the crisis has also been significant, with both sides accusing the other of violating international law and committing human rights abuses.
The Two-State Solution of Gaza Crisis is a complex and controversial issue that has been the subject of much debate and discussion. Despite efforts by various international bodies and governments to resolve the crisis, the situation remains unresolved.
The key challenge to the two-state solution is the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The conflict has resulted in significant loss of life and property, and has created deep-seated mistrust between the two sides.
Another significant challenge to the two-state solution is the political and economic instability in the region. The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and the lack of economic opportunities has contributed to the ongoing crisis.
Despite these challenges, there are reasons to be optimistic about the prospects for a two-state solution. The international community has been actively involved in promoting peace and stability in the region, and there have been some positive developments in recent years.
The Two-State Solution of Gaza Crisis is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach. While there are significant challenges to overcome, there are also reasons to be optimistic about the prospects for a peaceful resolution. The international community must continue to work towards a sustainable and lasting peace in the region.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the history of the two-state solution for Gaza?
The concept of a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been around for decades. It was first proposed in the 1930s, and the United Nations formally endorsed the idea in 1947. The two-state solution envisions the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, with the two states living in peace and security.
Is a two-state solution still a viable option for resolving the Gaza crisis?
There is no simple answer to this question. While many people still believe that a two-state solution is the best way to resolve the Gaza crisis, others are skeptical that it can ever be achieved. The situation in Gaza is complex, and there are many factors that make a two-state solution difficult to achieve. Some experts argue that the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has made a two-state solution less likely, while others point to the ongoing violence and political instability in Gaza as major obstacles to peace.
What are the potential obstacles to achieving a two-state solution for Gaza?
There are many potential obstacles to achieving a two-state solution for Gaza, including political, economic, and security issues. One of the biggest obstacles is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which has led to several wars and countless acts of violence. Other obstacles include the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the lack of a unified Palestinian leadership, and the economic and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
What is Hamas’ stance on a two-state solution for Gaza?
Hamas, which controls Gaza, has historically been opposed to a two-state solution. The group’s charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in all of historic Palestine. However, some members of Hamas have indicated that they may be willing to accept a two-state solution under certain conditions, such as the removal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank and the establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.
Are there any alternative solutions to the Gaza crisis besides a two-state solution?
There are several alternative solutions that have been proposed to resolve the Gaza crisis, including a one-state solution, a confederation of two states, and a regional peace agreement involving multiple Arab states. However, each of these solutions has its own set of challenges and obstacles, and none has gained widespread support.
How would a one-state solution differ from a two-state solution for Gaza?
A one-state solution would involve the creation of a single, democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians would have equal rights and representation. This would be a major departure from the two-state solution, which envisions the creation of two separate states. While a one-state solution has some appeal to those who believe in equal rights for all, it is also seen as a highly controversial and difficult solution to implement, given the deep divisions and historical animosity between Israelis and Palestinians.
The APEC Summit: Xi Jinping and Joe Biden’s meeting could change the world as we know it
Table of Contents
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit is set to take place in San Francisco Bay Area, where the leaders of the world’s two superpowers, China and the United States, are expected to meet face-to-face for the first time in a year. The meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden is a high-stakes diplomacy aimed at curbing tensions between the two countries. The meeting is expected to cover global issues from the Israel-Hamas war to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, North Korea’s ties with Russia, Taiwan, the Indo-Pacific, human rights, fentanyl, artificial intelligence, as well as “fair” trade and economic relations.
Importance of the Visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping
The meeting between the two leaders is significant as it comes at a time when the relationship between the two countries is at its lowest point in decades. The meeting is expected to be a major step towards stabilizing China-US relations. The meeting is also significant as it comes at a time when the world is facing a number of challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and economic instability. The meeting between the two leaders is expected to address these issues and pave the way for greater cooperation between the two countries.
The Importance of Diplomacy
The meeting between the two leaders is a reminder of the importance of diplomacy in resolving conflicts between nations. Diplomacy is the art of negotiating and resolving conflicts between nations through peaceful means. Diplomacy is essential in today’s world as it helps to prevent conflicts and promote peace and stability. The meeting between the two leaders is a testament to the fact that diplomacy can be used to resolve even the most complex of issues.
The Significance of the APEC Summit
The APEC summit is a significant event as it brings together leaders from the Asia-Pacific region to discuss issues of mutual concern. The summit provides an opportunity for leaders to discuss issues such as trade, investment, and economic cooperation. The summit is also an opportunity for leaders to discuss regional security issues and to promote peace and stability in the region.
The Importance of China-US Relations
China-US relations are among the most important bilateral relationships in the world. The two countries are the world’s largest economies and are major players in global politics. The relationship between the two countries has been strained in recent years due to a number of issues, including trade, human rights, and Taiwan. The meeting between the two leaders is a major step towards stabilizing the relationship between the two countries and promoting peace and stability in the region.
The Importance of Trade
Trade is an important issue for both China and the United States. The two countries are major trading partners, and their economic relationship is critical to the global economy. The meeting between the two leaders is expected to address issues related to trade and economic cooperation. The meeting is also expected to pave the way for greater cooperation between the two countries on issues such as climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic.
The meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden is a significant step towards stabilizing China-US relations. The meeting is expected to address a number of global issues and pave the way for greater cooperation between the two countries. The meeting is also a reminder of the importance of diplomacy in resolving conflicts between nations. Diplomacy is essential in today’s world as it helps to prevent conflicts and promote peace and stability. The meeting between the two leaders is a testament to the fact that diplomacy can be used to resolve even the most complex of issues.
Western Moves to Contain China’s Rise and The New Global Order!
Exploring the Biggest News Channels of the World: The Analysis and Metrics
10 Best US Presidents of All Time: A Comprehensive Ranking
COP 28 Dubai 2023: Uniting for a Sustainable Future Amidst Climate Change Challenges
TPNW can prevent nuclear disaster in South Asia
Unveiling the Megacities: A Comprehensive Look at the World’s Urban Giants
✨Shocking Truth: The Dark Secrets Behind Western Leaders’ Moral Collapse on Gaza Crisis
The Challenges to “Two State and Combined State Solution” of Gaza Crisis: A Comprehensive Analysis
Australia-China Relations: Can Anthony Albanese Thaw the Frozen Ties?
AI Revolution Begins: U.S. and China Join Forces in Historic AI Agreement
News2 years ago
Prioritizing health & education most effective way to improve socio-economic status: President
China2 years ago
Coronavirus Pandemic and Global Response
Canada2 years ago
Socio-Economic Implications of Canadian Border Closure With U.S
Conflict3 years ago
Kashmir Lockdown, UNGA & Thereafter
Democracy2 years ago
Missing You! SPSC
Democracy2 years ago
President Dr Arif Alvi Confers Civil Awards on Independence Day
Featured3 years ago
The Right-Wing Politics in United States & The Capitol Hill Mayhem
Digital3 years ago
Pakistan Moves Closer to Train One Million Youth with Digital Skills