Pin It

(The official Languages Bill, 1963, was introduced, because Article 343 of the Constitution stated categorically that the Official Language of the Union shall be Hindi after 1963. Being aware of the Passionate opposition towards such an arbitrary arrangement by the Non–Hindi States, this Bill tried to achieve a tenuous compromise by ruling that English may be also an official language until such time as Hindi could develop into an Official Language.

In able advocacy of the case for continuance of English as an official language instead of Hindi, Anna traces the history of the language problem. He refers to the apprehension mentioned by the Congressmen themselves during the discussions in the Constituent Assembly and points out that the language resolution in the Constituent Assembly was at best a compromise and therefore it is proper to do some rethinking on the subject.

Anna was prophetic when he stated in his speech, “In this problem, The DMK occupies only a very small place. It depends upon the future of this Bill whether the DMK is to occupy a greater sphere or occupy the same sphere.” The overall attitude of the Congress Party to the language issue made that party very unpopular in Tamil Nadu. The people of Tamil Nadu started seeing the DMK as a party that would fight to any extent, at any cost and undergo any suffering to resist the imposition of Hindi imperialism in Tamil Nadu. The mishandling of the language issue by the Congress Party and the language agitations of 1965 created an emotional awakening among the Tamil people and contributed to the electoral victories that DMK secured in the 1967 elections.)

anna 270Anna: MADAM, while I was hearing the lucid explanation offered by the Home Minister, I was almost convinced of his ability at tight-rope walking. He has tried to present Bill as the most convenient measure that could be drafted under the present circumstances. He has also made it appear as harmless as possible. But permit me to say that after the clarification offered by the Home Minister here and elsewhere, I stand unconvinced.

I rise to oppose this Bill, conscious of course of the numerical factor – the political arithmetic working in this Assembly. But I think apart from political arithmetic, this august House will pay some attention to political ethics and democratic liberalism, for democracy does not merely mean majority rule. It means, fundamentally, also recognizing, sanctifying and safeguarding minority rights and even minority sentiments. That is why I think – even though I am almost alone or, if I may take my colleague Professor Ruthnaswamy along with me – I cannot find any other support in any part here.

The Home Minister has stated that we in the opposition strike at one another. This is a problem wherein everybody else strikes at me, and yet I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not present what I feel sincerely. Therefore I say that I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the present Bill.

I am dissatisfied with the present Bill because it does not satisfy that sentimental objection raised to Hindi being made the official language and that sentimental objection comes not from a small part of India but from the southern side of India as a whole. Of course, my Hon. Friend, Mr. Bhupesh Gupta, wanted especially today to drive out English and, therefore, he was very harsh in presenting English; even the romantic Shakespearian characters like Romeo and Juliet were presented in a very harsh manner, but let me remind him that I am proud of Tamil and I am not as proud of English as I am of Tamil, and in my State, Tamil is the official language.

Mr Gupta’s friend ought to have informed him that I make English speeches only here and in my State, I speak in Tamil. I speak and write in Tamil in my State. Though it is run by the Congress, as far as language is concerned, they have made Tamil the official language and they made Tamil also the medium of instruction in higher classes. I would very much like my friend Mr. Gupta, to influence his Government as I have to a certain extent influence my Government.

BHUPESH GUPTA: Sorry, I cannot.

Anna: I sympathise with his inability, but I would like to tell him that I plead for English, I speak for English not because I am enamoured of it, not because I think ought to be given a higher place than my own mother tongue, but because it is the most convenient tool, it is the most convenient medium which distributes advantages or disadvantages evenly. Very many arguments have been advanced to say that India has got to have a common language, and if that base is accepted, one of the Indian languages alone can become the common language. Nobody doubts it.

If India is a unitary State, this argument is logical. India is a federal State. Indian society is plural, our political system is composite and in a plural society and composite political system to plead for a single common language will, I think, create injustice unawares, create handicaps unawares to some section of the society. India is not a country. India consists of various ethnic groups, India consist of various language groups and India has been termed very correctly as a sub-continent, and that is why we are not able to find out that common working medium as far as an official language is concerned.

Even today, my Hon. Friends of the Congress would forgive me for saying that the Congress has presented and the Government has accepted two national anthems, Vande Mataram and Jana gana mana. Neither of these two national anthems is in the Hindi language. They come, just as my friend Mr. Gupta comes from Bengal. That shows that whatever be the claim that the Hon. Home minister makes that Hindi has progressed very much, how can I be compensated when I am told that Hindi is becoming progressive, when I have got a language five thousand years old and when I am not able to make that language the official language of India?

I will say that of all the languages, barring Sanskrit which has become a dead language, Tamil has a literary tradition that goes back to five thousand years. I may tell, Madam Deputy Chairman, for the information of the house that the President is going over to our part of the country to release the English edition of the ancient Tamil work Tolkappiyam. Tolkappiyam is a grammatical work written more than three thousand years ago. We pose such as inheritance. Let not my friend, Mr. Bhupesh Gupta, feel that we are acting like some toadies and therefore we want English. No. he has stated that he pleads for Hindi and he wants Hindi to become the national language and official language, yet he did not attempt to learn Hindi and speak in Hindi.

BHUPESH GUPTA: I did not have time.

Anna: But he had time to learn Das Capital; he had time to learn the underlying difference between Russian Communism and Chinese Communism. He has had time to read everything except Hindi, and yet he spoke for Hindi here and had a dig at others saying that Shri C. Rajagopalachari said something at a big meeting. It was not as awkward as he as presented. I sat by his side when he addressed the meeting.

He was saying Madam Deputy Chairman, while I was sitting beside him:

“because of the Hindi question, there is estrangement between me and my old friends and because of the language question my inveterate enemy, the DMK, is sitting by my side”

This is what he said, and he asked the audience to draw a lesson by saying,

“here you find an example of language dividing and language uniting”.

He said, “English is uniting, and Hindi is dividing.”

Therefore, if Mr C. Rajagopalachari or anybody of his way of thinking pleads for English, it is not because they are enamored of it and they are not enamored of their own mother tongue. The home minister was very sincere when he dealt with the two grammatical phrases ‘may’ and ‘shall’, and he said that they are capable of two interpretations. After modestly saying that he was not a lawyer, not well-versed in law, he said the word ‘may’ is capable of two interpretations, and he also stated a very dangerous political principle. He said that the Bill or any law passed by any government will be effective and fruitful only when we know who implements it and how it is implemented. This is the worst part of this Bill.

Any law should be easy of interpretation, not only by august individuals like the home minister but even by ordinary political people who are to come after him. If the home minister is to assure me that everything will be all right if the Act is simply implemented properly, I will have the fulfill confidence in Mr Lal Bahadhur Shastri, but may I ask if Mr. Lal Bahadhur Shastri is going to be here for all times to come? should he not become the president of India? Therefore, just to say, “well, look at me. I am here, and I will implement it properly” – I say that no laws should be left to the vagaries of the future governments.

Another dangerous thing that the home minister stated was this. While we were discussing this, he said there were the courts to decide. Madam Deputy Chairman, if every Act is to be taken to the court and if for the implementation of every Act we have to be at the back and call of courts and judgments, if we have to rely on the lawyers and the judges - and the home minister has made very pungent remarks: we know that the lawyers differ, the judges differ – where is the certainty? Why do you enact such an imperfect bill throwing us to the wolves, asking us to go to the courts to know the real meaning or the judicial meaning of the simple word ‘may’?

The home minister has stated that if ‘may’ is replaced by ‘shall’ there may arise so many difficulties. Difficulties to arise, but the law department remains there to ease out the difficulties and present a bill acceptable to all. I do not think that the law department which is able to prepare bills every week even curtailing fundamental rights, is too poverty-stricken in ideas and inefficient to present a perfect bill. Therefore on the face of it and on the interpretation offered by the home minister himself, I think that the Bill is imperfect.

Another curious thing the home minister said, Of course, he presented it in a very sweet manner. He said, “I went to Madras to the Hindi Prachar convocation and when I met thousands of graduates there I was wondering whether I should address them in English and they said speak in Hindi.” Is it any wonder, Madam Deputy Chairman, for the home minister to address in Hindi in the Hindi convocation? To whom does it do credit? The amazing part of it is that the home minister was doubtful whether Hindi would be understood there in the Hindi Prachar Sabha Convocation. He was doubtful whether Hindi would be understood and that is why he enquired what language he should speak in. Therefore let us not fall in for such things. I would request the Home Minister to leave such funny things to younger people and present more cogent, more logical and more responsible arguments in support of the Bill.

Now, I would like to deal with this question under three or four broad headings – the problem of language during the Constituent Assembly proceedings, the experience gained during these 15 years, thirdly we should take into consideration the Prime Minister’s assurance and fourthly we should find out whether this Bill gives effect to that assurance of the Prime Minister.

First of all, let us take the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly. Now, my friend, Mr Bhupesh Gupta was proving here that English can never be the official language because it is a foreign language and only Hindi can be the official language, and he said there are only a handful of people, toadies and lackeys –

BHUPESH GUPTA: I gave the percentage.

Anna: You just go through your speech later. Who question Hindi and plead for English. Madam Deputy Chairman, I have got here the remarks made on the floor of the Constituent Assembly by Mr B. Das of Orissa. He accepted Hindi, After accepting Hindi he has stated:

“But that does not mean that we have no apprehensions, we have no suspicions, we have no fears. The fears and suspicions of years ago when officialdom was manned by the English. When the Civil Service examinations were held in London naturally the Englishmen preponderated in the Service. Now that the Civil Service and other examinations are being held in Delhi naturally hereafter the Hindi – speaking province – Madam, Mr. Das was very prophetic!

“I am not talking of the immediate future but 15 years hence - the people of Hindi – speaking provinces such as U.P. and C.P. will preponderate in the Civil and other services.”

Dr. Subbarayan, also pleaded for retaining English or for Hindustani with Roman Script.

The language clause introduced in the constitution, though it may be an agreed solution, was at best a compromise and in all compromises, we have got every legitimate right for a reappraisal and rethinking. My friend was saying that as far as Hindi was concerned, it was a settled fact that Hindi is to become the official language in 1965 and nobody could question it. No, Sir, that is not the case, because our Constitution is flexible, our political system is democratic and we have got every right to amend the Constitution.

We are amending the Constitution for the sixteenth time and I would plead for a reappraisal of the language issue and ask this august House to inform the Government that instead of allowing this bitterness to grow, this rancour to continue, instead of the two camps being created artificially, they should take up a reappraisal of the language question and keep till that time the status quo. If that is done, I would be perfectly satisfied with the motives of the Government. Were not alternatives offered to the Home Minister by his own party men at the party conclaves? Were all the members of the Congress Party fully satisfied with the Bill? Did it not need the entire cajoling of the Home Minister and the persuasion of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister, to coax them? Am I divulging any secret when I say that? Did it not appear in all the papers? Were the Congress M. P.s from the southern States satisfied? Did they not fight for the word ‘shall’? Did they not fight for the deletion of the clause relating to the reviewing Committee? What was offered to them? Of course, I do not have personal contact with the Home Minister, but even from a distance he is a charming man and to his party people he ought to be very charming. Therefore he had a charming way of dispelling their suspicions but the problem is not their suspicions. The people suspect the motives behind this Bill. It may be argued that 42 per cent of the people –

M. B. LAL: He should be given more time.

N. M. ANWAR: He must be given more time.

HON .MEMBERS: Yes, he must be given time.

Anna: It was stated Hindi has got the claim to become the official language because it was spoken by 42 per cent of the population. If this 42 percent were to be scattered throughout the length and breadth of India, the argument would be logical and it would be ethical also. but this 42 per cent is concentrated in compact and contiguous areas. It is not spread over. Therefore if 42 per cent is taken into consideration, you are conferring a permanent, perennial advantage on a compact and contiguous area in India and conversely a permanent disadvantage to other areas. And therefore it is that this 42 per cent cannot be taken into consideration. If Hindi were to be spoken throughout India even by 20 per cent of the people, then we can say that of all the languages Hindi is known from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas. Twenty percent of our population do know Hindi and, therefore, let Hindi become the official language. I can understand it, though I cannot support it. I can understand the logic behind it. But what is the logic behind presenting this 42 per cent, in a compact area of U. P., Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh as an argument? It was Mr. T. T. Krishnamachari who once said “India, that is Bharat, that is U.P.”….

SANTHOSH KUMAR BASU: Shri Shyama Prasad Mookerjee said that.

Anna: Shri Shyama Prasad Mookerjee said it and T. T. Krishnamachari repeated it once. I distinctly remember it. It first emanated from Bengal. All revolutionary thoughts emanate from Bengal.

Therefore, the 42 per cent, entrenched in a compact area cannot be taken as an index of ethical majority. It is merely an arithmetical majority. Therefore I say that Hindi has no claim to becoming the official language. As the Home Minister was saying, we have had linguistic States working in full harmony. We have developed our regional languages. We do not even call them regional languages. We call them the national languages. In my State Tamil is the national language and it is the official language. Each of these national or linguistic States is developing in its own way. I would very much request Members of this House to come along with me and note the present political situation and find out whether your official language problem fits in. Here you have got linguistic States fully conscious of their nationalism. They are developing their national languages. Just as they are developing their national language, Telugu in Andhra, Malayalam in Kerala and Tamil in Tamil Nadu, so also in U. P. Madya Pradesh, Rajasthan and other places, they have got every right to develop Hindi as their national language, as the official language there. I found from the papers that in Punjab, which is considered to be bilingual with Hindi and Punjabi, the Leader of the House was saying some days back that he had great difficulty making Hindi become the official language there. Therefore, I would request, I would plead with the Hindi States to make their language their State official language. Work it out and make it acceptable to everyone else, if they want it.

SANTHOSH KUMAR BASU: What is your solution to the problem of a common language for the whole of India?

Anna: Maybe my solution to the problem is negative, not positive. I will present it in this way. Keep the status quo by amending the Constitution. Let there be a solution not necessarily by us. We are not the last scions of India. Perhaps we are more confused. We have more political rancour. In future times a proper solution may be arrived at. Therefore, let us not seal it. Let us have the status quo maintained by an amendment of the Constitution. I do not say it is my solution. It is my request, it is my pleading and I would say that on a solution of this issue depends the entire political future of South India, especially Tamil Nadu.

B. K. P. SINHA (Bihar): Why not The Hague Court?

Anna: I know I am facing the Home Minister and in facing him, I say as a Gandhian he should give me the right of protesting against what I consider to be evil and unjust. I am prepared to take any consequence, and I am not alone in Tamil Nadu. And therefore it is that I would say, respect the feelings of people who have got a hoary language, who think that by the imposition of Hindi as the official language there will be political rancour.

Well, arguments are advanced that English is a foreign language. Again I give an example which may perhaps irritate my friend, Shri Bhupesh Gupta. In the United States of America, only 20 per cent of the people went from the British Isles. Of the 80 per cent of people, some of them went from Spain, some from Portugal, some from Italy and other European countries. Yet America has chosen English as the official language.

My friend, Mr. Bhupesh Gupta, smiles; “oh, that Anglo–American conspiracy, we are well aware of it.” Yet I would say that Americans have got as much self–respect as we have got. Then, they thought that if they could adopt English as the official language, they could convey the sentiments of so many people.

Again, I would give another classic example, Ireland was fighting England as ferociously, if not more ferociously than as the Congress fought the British. In Ireland De Valera said: “If we are given the option Ireland or the Gaelic language, I would give up Ireland, and I would keep the Gaelic language.” When Ireland became free, the Irish Parliament met and decided that Gaelic should be the official language and along with it, English should be the official language as well.

After all, we do not have any rancour or hatred towards the British. We happen to be members of the Common Wealth though my friend, Mr. Bhupesh Gupta, would like India to be in some other group. Fortunately or unfortunately, India is a member of the Common Wealth. You can remain in the Common Wealth. You can use all technology. You can look at the world through the window of English, but English is a foreign language. It will be considered to be derogatory to us if the British were the remain here and say take it. Then, we will have to resist it. But now there is no question of imposition of English by the British. As a matter of fact, as my friend Mr. Bhupesh Gupta said, the British would very much like English to get out of India because of the low standard of English here. Therefore, it is not as if there is any imposition of an alien language by an alien power. We ourselves, for the sake of convenience, for the sake of expediency, because of the force of circumstances, are asked to choose this medium, which happens to be foreign to U.P., foreign to Madhya Pradesh, foreign to Tamil Nadu, foreign to Andhra, therefore the advantages and disadvantages are evenly distributed.

Now, suppose Hindi becomes the official language. The Prime Minister has been saying that Hindi should be simplified. If a language becomes the national language, take it from me, from my experience of the working of the Tamil language, the pressure will be to make it more and more pure and not more and more simple. You can never simplify the language after making it official or national. If you come to our part of the country, Mr Bhupesh Gupta, you will find new words taken from the old vocabulary of Tamil. In the case of Tamil mixed with Sanskrit, the mixture has been taken out, and there is purity of language there. That alone will happen in the Hindi States.

When that happens and when we are asked to learn simple Hindi, is it not a handicap race? For Hindi–knowing people in the Hindi States, Hindi is the mother–tongue, Hindi is the State official language, Hindi is the medium of instruction and Hindi is the official language in the Union. How many advantages have they got? How many disadvantages have you put on us? Hindi is not our mother–tongue, though if we learn Hindi, we can speak as our esteemed friend, Shri Satyanarayana.

You want curiosities in North India. That is say, however efficient, however proficient we may become in any language, unless it is our mother–tongue, it cannot offer us advantages as that language would offer to members of that group, and that is why we say that behind this Language Bill there is the political problem. You may not be aware of it. The Hon. Minister has stated at the far end of his speech that there is no ulterior motive. There cannot be ulterior motive when such gentlemen are handling such things. But I say whether you have a motive or not, the consequence will be that. The consequence of the imposition of Hindi as the official language will create a definite, permanent and sickening advantage to the Hindi–speaking States. That was what was stated by Shri B. Das of Orissa in the Constituent Assembly, by Dr. Subbaroyan and by very many others. And even in the Rajya Sabha some years back when an allied question was discussed, my Hon. Friend, Shri Avinashilingam Chettiar, raised his voice of warning. Therefore, do not think that it is merely confined to the DMK. In this problem, the DMK occupies only a very small place. It depends upon the future of this Bill whether the DMK is to occupy a greater sphere or occupy the same sphere. But let me tell this House through you, Mr Vice–Chairman with all respect, that if Hindi is imposed as the official language, the DMK will unfold its relentless fight, its relentless agitation against this imposition of Hindi whatever be the consequences.

The other day I heard the Home Minister saying, “During the emergency, the parliament is empowering me to take what action I like.” I am aware of it and being cognizant of it my conscience will not permit me to keep quiet if this imposition of Hindi were to become a fact. The entire south will revolt against this. When I say the entire south, I know that there are Andhra, Malayalees and others who will say; “No no. we are not with you.” I am aware of that. But those who understand the significance if the Hindi menace and those who realize the consequence of the Hindi menace, they are with me.

An Hon. Member: The Madras minorities are with you.

Anna: It is simply because I am in a minority that I am pleading. If I had been in a majority, I would have carried the day. Therefore it is not an accusation. Because you are saying that, I have to point out that the Congress Party itself controls power not because it is in the majority, but it controls power through minority votes.

K.P. Sinha: Largest single block of votes.

Anna: The congress party got during the last elections 72 percent of the seats in the Lok sabha on an aggregate poll of 45 per cent of the votes in its favor, whereas the opposition groups got 28 per cent of the seat despite the fact that they polled 55 per cent of the votes.


Anna: Please do not provoke me into presenting these stark realities. Therefore, I would say that it is not a question of majority or minority. It is a question of justice and freedom, it is a question of consultation and concord, it is a question of amity and affection or animosity. You will have to decide it in that way and not through numbers. Therefore it is that I say I request the Home minister, through the Bill it is passed by the Lok Sabha, to withdraw the Bill, to take the prime minister’s assurance into his consideration. And that is the last item that I want to press upon him.

What is the prime minister’s assurance? Before saying what the prime minister assured, I would ask the Home Minister to go into the genesis of that assurance, why was it given, when it was given, how it was given and to whom it was given. A prime minister of a state will not go on giving assurances to anybody at any time. An assurance from the prime minister becomes necessary because he finds a political atmosphere in the country that needs soothing. That needs assuaging, and it was at that time that the prime minister had come forward to dispel our apprehensions. He stated that English would continue as the associative official language.

Why don’t we include the words ‘associative official language’? well somebody may ask: “Are you not satisfied with the title? it is an official language.” But if I were to be satisfied with the title, my friend Mr. Vajpayee would be dissatisfied because it is official languages and not official language therefore I have got nothing against Mr. Vajpayee. I can understand his words, and as a matter of fact in politics as well as in other things, extremes can understand extremes. It is only the mixtures that create difficulty.

My friend, Mr. Vajpayee, is swearing by Hindi. I appreciate his courage. I wish my State also contains as many Vajpayees as possible. He is fighting for his language, fighting not only for his language to become the State official language but to become the all India official language, and if my friend, Mr Vajpayee, were to be given full scope, he would make it even a world language. I like him very much got that. But what the Congress Government has done is this. They, on the one hand, went on encouraging the Hindi people, and on the other hand, they went on giving confidence to us also. Wherever there were occasions to meet people who wanted Hindi as an official language, they said: “Do not be afraid. Let 1965 dawn, Hindi will become the official language.” And Shri Vajpayee was thoroughly satisfied. That is why the present Bill dissatisfies him because another ten years’ lease of life is given to English and he turns round and asks; “Where is my Hindi?”

You have given rich assurances to us. You have stated that English will remain an associate language indefinitely. The word ‘indefinitely’ was explained by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in this way: “As long as you want, as long as the non-Hindi people want; and I will leave the entire question to be decided not by Hindi-knowing people but by non-Hindi knowing people.”

Now by giving assurances to us and by encouraging men of Mr Vajpayee’s persuasion, you are creating unnecessary rancour between myself and Mr Vajpayee. If you are to allow Mr Vajpayee to develop Hindi in his UP and if you are to allow English to be the link between me and Mr Vajpayee, I could not get a better friend than Mr Vajpayee. Therefore I think that through this Bill you are creating political rancour, and so the Prime Minister’s assurance has not been carried out through this Bill.

Of course, clause by clause people argue, well, the Prime Minister stated that English would continue, English continues. How? Not as an associate official language along with Hindi, but for some purposes which the Government will decide. But the Prime Minister has stated that English will remain as an associate official language, and if the Prime Minister’ assurance is to be fully carried out, I would request the Home Minister to drop this Bill, gird up his loins, take the consequences that may arise out of it because they are courageous people and bring forward an amendment of the Consitution maintaining the status quo, that is keeping English as the official language.

Please do not think that because it is foreign, we should discard it. This is the age of getting know-how and technical assistance from any country that gives them and therefore let it be the technical assistance that the English people have given to us or handed over to us till, as my Hon. Friend here put it, a permanent solution is thought of in a calmer mood perhaps by people who come after. Therefore, I request the Home Minister to drop this Bill, because I may tell him that the moment this Bill was discussed, the claim atmosphere in South India was disturbed. Everywhere, in every town in Tamil Nad, you can find two groups discussing this problem, discussing it not in an amicable way, but discussing it with political rancour.

And when the Home Minister has stated that the enemy is there to be driven out, is it the proper time to create such a discord? Is it the proper time for disturbing the political concord and political climate? As a sagacious statesman, the Home Ministers should look into the matter and drop this Bill, amend the Constitution, keep English as the official language till the non-Hindi-speaking people decide about it.

When I am saying this, I am not being ludicrous because a member of the Planning Commission, Shri Shriman Narayan, has stated only last week that only the non-Hindi people should decide the question. And another member of the Congress Party itself, in a meeting presided over, I think, by the Home Minister, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri, was kind enough to say - I remember to have read his name as Mr Misra only last week - that a blank cheque should be given to the non-Hindi people, let them write the dead-line. That is political magnanimity, that is political sagacity.

And through this Bill, the political sagacity and statesmanship expected of you is being thwarted and you are driving a wedge into the calm political atmosphere and the united outlook that you have created during the one year and more. Therefore with a lone voice, though it might be as Mr Bhupesh Gupta stated, a noisy voice, I would plead with the Home Minister to consider this as the feeling of the official representative of the DMK and the unofficial emissary of the non-Hindi States of the South, those people who understand the menace of Hindi and its consequences. Therefore, I plead before the Home Minister for a reappraisal of the language issue, pending that reappraisal, for an amendment of the Constitution for maintaining the status quo and keeping English as the official language.

(C.N. Annadurai's speech at Parliament on May 1963)

 You can send your articles to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Pin It

Add comment

Security code