At the recent General Assembly session, Israel made it clear that nothing is more important to Israelis than Iran’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is irrelevant. Hamas is secondary. The world economy is not important. Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped, and anything and everything is justified to achieve this goal.
Benjamin Netanyahu called for a ‘red line’ to be set – a certain point in Iran’s enrichment endeavors when military assaults would be justified. He also sweepingly claimed that Iran was weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb and used a crude picture of a bomb on a piece of paper to illustrate his point to an audience of (presumably ignorant and dumb) diplomats. But dogmatic, sweeping statements can only go that far.
One fundamental loophole in the ‘red line’ argument is that Netanyahu purposely ignores the wider implications of such a military action in a highly volatile Middle Eastern region. Such aggression will not only lead to an elongated battle between the two vicious arch-rivals, Israel and Iran but also jeopardize the integrity of the entire region. Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East will not approve of Israeli action, and might as well join the assault against Iran, but also against Israel, causing a three-pronged war. The US has also not declared absolute support for the ‘red line’ plan, so the action will be entirely unilateral, at least initially. Clearly, Israel’s own impulses have clouded its objective assessment of a military action.
Another fatal flaw in this plan is the impracticality of such an action. According to BBC, Israel only partially possesses the capability to war with Iran continuously. Israeli jets will require constant refueling as they fight, and perhaps along the way, which is implausible. In order to reach Iran, Israeli troops will have to cross a huge stretch of territory mostly covered by nations who hate Israel to the core. In addition, Iran is likely to receive support from Pakistan, officially or unofficially in any war against Israel. Israel’s war will be a humongous drain on its resources, unless it is supported unconditionally by the USA, which is not guaranteed at this point in time. And US support is shaky with the upcoming US elections and the global economic crisis in general.
Israel’s statement is also the pinnacle of hypocrisy. A nation engulfed in the ludicrous ideology of nuclear ambiguity, Israel seeks transparency and nuclear program suspension in Iran even though Israel itself is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons and has not even joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel’s Dimona plant is one of the most dubious facilities in the world.
Israel’s justification for military action is also largely based on speculation and assumption. Netanyahu mentioned in his speech that Iran was close to reaching the 90% uranium enrichment milestone, but he did not substantiate this with any valid evidence. He superficially mentions random IAEA reports, but fails to quote specific findings that should cause alarm. Most countries believe that it will take Iran a few years before its apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons reaches fruition, unlike Israel. So who do we trust: 190 other countries or Benjamin Netanyahu?
If a red line has to be set, the ultimatum should be further sanctions or restrictions or non-military measures. A hot war between the two countries could very well erupt into a global war. You may argue that Iran has few allies, and that a conflict will be very one-sided. However, one thing we know from experience is that Iran is frustratingly resilient – it will resist any challenge even if it translates into mass torture and drudgery for its own citizens. The Israel and the US will undoubtedly side together but the other Western nations are unlikely to join in actively. And if Iran does possess a nuclear weapon, it might as well bring two, and potentially three or four (if Pakistan joins in, and Israel possesses nuclear arms) nations at the precipice of nuclear war.
It is high time that the international community focuses more on incentives and prudent compromises rather than throwing hay bales of sanctions at Iran. These measures will only frustrate Iran rather than alleviate the tension. The Iranian solution is a complex and depressingly dystopian. We don’t know what the best solution is or how many solutions are out there. But one thing is clear – red lines and bloodbaths are not part of them.
Arvin Anoop
FY - K
Friday, October 19, 2012
Thursday, October 18, 2012
The Innocence of Muslims
The (now) much famous film has caused a firestorm in the Muslim world. The film is the epitome of crassness and ignominy. But it doesn’t take a genius to pin point that out. What does seem to be a Herculean task for some is to understand the social and economic implications of such vast and violent outrage. In an attempt to tame the views of those who are still hot-blooded and wish to act irrationally on some deep-rooted hatred, this is a call, an essay with the aim to hopefully, trace the line between protest and uproar.
Salman Rushdie, a British novelist spoke in terms that encapsulate the essence of the film. When questioned about it, he said, “There are two things to talk about, the first, is the YouTube video, and the second is the response,” he said. “The video is trashy. It’s badly made, it may be the worst video on YouTube, and that’s saying something, competing with all those videos of people’s cats. “And its intent was to stir trouble,” he continued. “As I understand, the video was around for a year, before it was dubbed into Arabic and intentionally sent to several people with the goal of getting them in a bad mood. And that worked.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. What started out as a barely known, obscure film that lurked in the shadows of YouTube soon emerged and captured the attention of thousands of people all around the world. The film-maker, is now probably very wealthy, and moreover, quite certainly very happy. Is this what we wanted? We saw the video, and we stormed to the streets, with our flags and our tiny banners. Others followed with sticks, stumbling along the boundaries of the embassy, aiming to strike at it. Let me just throw in a few numbers. At least15 people were killed, more than 120 were injured, and needless to say, ramifications on business were severe. Many shot bullets into the air, mobs roamed like flocks, throwing anything tangible at the police. Colossal damage took place and what started out as a day labeled as "Love of Prophet Muhammad Day", had a rather ironic ring to it. Is this how he would have dealt with such a situation, one asks? Certainly there is not love here, there is only violence.
The United States took a diplomatic stance, they condemned the video but there was not much they could even do. Abiding by their rigid constitution, they only followed the First Amendment. So to blame them for the movie is ludicrous. There is no one to blame but the film maker, Mosab Hassan Yousef himself. Why are our emotions and actions governed by him? Have we not already given him the satisfaction of what he wanted from us? He yearned for popularity. We handed it to him in the worst way we knew how. We can probably, and might as well even, imagine him coyly sitting and smirking at his success. What a shame.
Our economy suffered, as though it’s not already facing enough setbacks. Businesses went out of order, the stagnation in the market led to no progress. There was a film made in America and we blow up our own people. Oh and the icing on the cake is this, he recently told the LA times he had already cast a "Hollywood actor" in the title role of his $30 million film, titled Muhammad. His work started out on YouTube as a free-for-all, menial ‘trailer’ and he’s just working his way up. But he now has the funds to do it, and no matter how many people we kill, or things we burn, we can’t stop him. We can however deal with it by condemning it, making sure that he suffers losses by not promoting the film in anyway.
So I conclude this rant by saying that, the internet is a pool of rubble, mixed emotions and irascible people. When people ignore it and choose to ignore it, a lot of the garbage remains unearthed. This should have been the case here. So I urge that next time something similar happens we think before we act, for we are only harming innocent people.
Shanzeh Agrawala
Salman Rushdie, a British novelist spoke in terms that encapsulate the essence of the film. When questioned about it, he said, “There are two things to talk about, the first, is the YouTube video, and the second is the response,” he said. “The video is trashy. It’s badly made, it may be the worst video on YouTube, and that’s saying something, competing with all those videos of people’s cats. “And its intent was to stir trouble,” he continued. “As I understand, the video was around for a year, before it was dubbed into Arabic and intentionally sent to several people with the goal of getting them in a bad mood. And that worked.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. What started out as a barely known, obscure film that lurked in the shadows of YouTube soon emerged and captured the attention of thousands of people all around the world. The film-maker, is now probably very wealthy, and moreover, quite certainly very happy. Is this what we wanted? We saw the video, and we stormed to the streets, with our flags and our tiny banners. Others followed with sticks, stumbling along the boundaries of the embassy, aiming to strike at it. Let me just throw in a few numbers. At least15 people were killed, more than 120 were injured, and needless to say, ramifications on business were severe. Many shot bullets into the air, mobs roamed like flocks, throwing anything tangible at the police. Colossal damage took place and what started out as a day labeled as "Love of Prophet Muhammad Day", had a rather ironic ring to it. Is this how he would have dealt with such a situation, one asks? Certainly there is not love here, there is only violence.
The United States took a diplomatic stance, they condemned the video but there was not much they could even do. Abiding by their rigid constitution, they only followed the First Amendment. So to blame them for the movie is ludicrous. There is no one to blame but the film maker, Mosab Hassan Yousef himself. Why are our emotions and actions governed by him? Have we not already given him the satisfaction of what he wanted from us? He yearned for popularity. We handed it to him in the worst way we knew how. We can probably, and might as well even, imagine him coyly sitting and smirking at his success. What a shame.
Our economy suffered, as though it’s not already facing enough setbacks. Businesses went out of order, the stagnation in the market led to no progress. There was a film made in America and we blow up our own people. Oh and the icing on the cake is this, he recently told the LA times he had already cast a "Hollywood actor" in the title role of his $30 million film, titled Muhammad. His work started out on YouTube as a free-for-all, menial ‘trailer’ and he’s just working his way up. But he now has the funds to do it, and no matter how many people we kill, or things we burn, we can’t stop him. We can however deal with it by condemning it, making sure that he suffers losses by not promoting the film in anyway.
So I conclude this rant by saying that, the internet is a pool of rubble, mixed emotions and irascible people. When people ignore it and choose to ignore it, a lot of the garbage remains unearthed. This should have been the case here. So I urge that next time something similar happens we think before we act, for we are only harming innocent people.
Shanzeh Agrawala
The New Asian Cold War – Now Inevitable
As up to 70 maritime patrol vessels and coast guard ships circle the remote set of rocks in the East China Sea, tension mounts on the other side of the globe. Fearful that an Asian cold war with two of the world’s largest economies at opposite ends might commence, Pentagon’s chief calls for calm in the China - Japan spat. Yet, anti-Japan protests continue to rock the major cities of China whilst Japanese companies including Honda, Toyota and Aeon continue to suspend operations inside the Chinese Republic.
The deep rooted hatred that has become evident through this incidental ‘flare-up’ serves is yet another reminder of just how potent territorial disputes remain in Asia. The island dispute is, therefore, not just a diplomatic scuffle but a clear sign indicating and revealing that the wounds of previous conflicts are still fresh. In view of the current situation, it may well be said that this ‘war of words’ might result in a spite filled cold war that could last for years if not decades.
Even though there has been a massive amount of economic integration between the two countries, the danger, clearly, is that politics will trump economics in the new Asian cold war. Although Japan is a big investor in China with two way trade worth $342.9billion last year, it continues to assert territorial authority by pressing on with the islands issue. Therefore, it is evident that the economic friendship will be of no use if China and Japan were to end up in actual conflict.
This fate is more worrying for the world than for the rivals themselves. If the world’s second and third largest economies were to clash, then the global markets would be completely destabilized and who knows what devastating repercussions would face the dependent nations. It is therefore imperative that the international community helps these conflicting nations in sorting out their issues.
The issues, however, are not that simple – there has been a constantly competitive rivalry between China and Japan over the previous three centuries. By the 1700’s China had become the most dominant and advanced empire in the Far East. Travelers from Japan realized how savage and backwards the Japanese were as compared to their counterparts in China. From then on the Japanese began a wave of economic and military development which inevitably led to territorial expansion. A large chunk of Northern China as well as Taiwan, Korea and the surrounding Pacific Islands came under Japanese rule by the early 1940’s. Japanese products were considered the superior products in the world market due to their high standard of quality. Hence economic rivalry had also begun.
After the Second World War, however, the Japanese were driven out of China with the assistance of the international community and the People’s Republic of China was formed under the inspiring leadership of Mao Zedong. Ideologically, socially, culturally and economically China had been reformed. And so it began its ‘great leap forward’ – the leap to overtake economic and political rival Japan.
………
Since then China has advanced so much that at present it is an economic giant and has overtaken its eastern competitor in terms of industry, trade and political power. Thus the spark of territorial dispute continues to be fuelled by the long lasting sentiments of competitiveness and hate.
Hence, it is clear that the current China-Japan row is an outcome of the thriving and growing framework of conflict that has developed over the span of centuries. The only way to stop this cataclysmic cold war from flaring up is that either of the two economic giants gives up its claim on the remote set of rocks. The side that ultimately does this, will, through that gesture, convey its message of wanting peace and stability in the Asian region. Until then the world waits……
Daniyal Motan FY-K
The deep rooted hatred that has become evident through this incidental ‘flare-up’ serves is yet another reminder of just how potent territorial disputes remain in Asia. The island dispute is, therefore, not just a diplomatic scuffle but a clear sign indicating and revealing that the wounds of previous conflicts are still fresh. In view of the current situation, it may well be said that this ‘war of words’ might result in a spite filled cold war that could last for years if not decades.
Even though there has been a massive amount of economic integration between the two countries, the danger, clearly, is that politics will trump economics in the new Asian cold war. Although Japan is a big investor in China with two way trade worth $342.9billion last year, it continues to assert territorial authority by pressing on with the islands issue. Therefore, it is evident that the economic friendship will be of no use if China and Japan were to end up in actual conflict.
This fate is more worrying for the world than for the rivals themselves. If the world’s second and third largest economies were to clash, then the global markets would be completely destabilized and who knows what devastating repercussions would face the dependent nations. It is therefore imperative that the international community helps these conflicting nations in sorting out their issues.
The issues, however, are not that simple – there has been a constantly competitive rivalry between China and Japan over the previous three centuries. By the 1700’s China had become the most dominant and advanced empire in the Far East. Travelers from Japan realized how savage and backwards the Japanese were as compared to their counterparts in China. From then on the Japanese began a wave of economic and military development which inevitably led to territorial expansion. A large chunk of Northern China as well as Taiwan, Korea and the surrounding Pacific Islands came under Japanese rule by the early 1940’s. Japanese products were considered the superior products in the world market due to their high standard of quality. Hence economic rivalry had also begun.
After the Second World War, however, the Japanese were driven out of China with the assistance of the international community and the People’s Republic of China was formed under the inspiring leadership of Mao Zedong. Ideologically, socially, culturally and economically China had been reformed. And so it began its ‘great leap forward’ – the leap to overtake economic and political rival Japan.
………
Since then China has advanced so much that at present it is an economic giant and has overtaken its eastern competitor in terms of industry, trade and political power. Thus the spark of territorial dispute continues to be fuelled by the long lasting sentiments of competitiveness and hate.
Hence, it is clear that the current China-Japan row is an outcome of the thriving and growing framework of conflict that has developed over the span of centuries. The only way to stop this cataclysmic cold war from flaring up is that either of the two economic giants gives up its claim on the remote set of rocks. The side that ultimately does this, will, through that gesture, convey its message of wanting peace and stability in the Asian region. Until then the world waits……
Daniyal Motan FY-K
Case Against Intervention in Syria
When the protests started on the 15 of March, 2011, during the Arab Spring, the world had started to look at another Arab country with a dictator whose time was up. It had three major similarities to the other protests which made the world reason that President Bashar al-Assad time was up. He like Ben Ali, Qaddafi, Mubarak and Saleh had:
• Ruled his country for a considerable amount of time, 12 years to be exact.
• His government had a terrible human rights record, among the worst in the world.
• High youth unemployment rates and deterioration of standard of living.
• Western countries supporting the opposition.
However this is where the similarities stop and a new scenario is presented in an entirely new country. Syria is not the same as the countries mentioned above. Unlike Mubarak and Ben Ali, the military still supports Al-Assad. Unlike Qaddafi, he still has 3 major allies, 2 with veto power in the United Nation Security Council. If there is a major military intervention by the west it will no longer be considered a civil war, it will become a proxy war, because it is not simply the matter of a dictator who is a bad and everyone who is against him is automatically good. What started out as a protest by the people has become a very complicated scenario where one cannot be sure of who to support.
First we need to understand why foreign intervention is wrong and what foreign intervention would mean. Firstly the problem with foreign intervention is that people will not be voting on who the military aid should go to. It will not be a democracy; in fact the countries giving the aid will decide. So in effect out of the several rebel groups that have sprung about, the ones supported by the west will actually win this civil war not those supported by the people. The rebel groups which the Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Turkey supports will be likely to win by an intervention these groups would not necessarily be true representation of the people. This distinction is important to make as it makes us realize that by intervention we will not be supporting the right of the people to rule, instead will be appointing a puppet ruler much like the case in Afghanistan. If we do look at the situation of Afghanistan, the western intervention did topple a totalitarian regime there and put there a western backed government as has been proposed for Syria. Yet Afghanistan is in a state of utter chaos with the government accused of massive corruption and human rights problem still exists.
The question remains is Syria any different? With an unorganized rebel group, who is to lead the country after the civil war if the rebels win? A war within the civil war is brewing in Syria. It is a battle of ideas, a struggle for the overall direction of the insurgency that is pitting moderate-Muslims against Salafists, jihadists and other Islamist groups. With the West backing the moderates and Saudi Arabia backing the Islamist, the Syrian civil war may lose its identity and become a proxy war where the victor would be decided on the basis of foreign support not domestic support which really matters when we look at what everyone in the world is presumably supporting, true democracy.
Muneeb Hussain
• Ruled his country for a considerable amount of time, 12 years to be exact.
• His government had a terrible human rights record, among the worst in the world.
• High youth unemployment rates and deterioration of standard of living.
• Western countries supporting the opposition.
However this is where the similarities stop and a new scenario is presented in an entirely new country. Syria is not the same as the countries mentioned above. Unlike Mubarak and Ben Ali, the military still supports Al-Assad. Unlike Qaddafi, he still has 3 major allies, 2 with veto power in the United Nation Security Council. If there is a major military intervention by the west it will no longer be considered a civil war, it will become a proxy war, because it is not simply the matter of a dictator who is a bad and everyone who is against him is automatically good. What started out as a protest by the people has become a very complicated scenario where one cannot be sure of who to support.
First we need to understand why foreign intervention is wrong and what foreign intervention would mean. Firstly the problem with foreign intervention is that people will not be voting on who the military aid should go to. It will not be a democracy; in fact the countries giving the aid will decide. So in effect out of the several rebel groups that have sprung about, the ones supported by the west will actually win this civil war not those supported by the people. The rebel groups which the Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Turkey supports will be likely to win by an intervention these groups would not necessarily be true representation of the people. This distinction is important to make as it makes us realize that by intervention we will not be supporting the right of the people to rule, instead will be appointing a puppet ruler much like the case in Afghanistan. If we do look at the situation of Afghanistan, the western intervention did topple a totalitarian regime there and put there a western backed government as has been proposed for Syria. Yet Afghanistan is in a state of utter chaos with the government accused of massive corruption and human rights problem still exists.
The question remains is Syria any different? With an unorganized rebel group, who is to lead the country after the civil war if the rebels win? A war within the civil war is brewing in Syria. It is a battle of ideas, a struggle for the overall direction of the insurgency that is pitting moderate-Muslims against Salafists, jihadists and other Islamist groups. With the West backing the moderates and Saudi Arabia backing the Islamist, the Syrian civil war may lose its identity and become a proxy war where the victor would be decided on the basis of foreign support not domestic support which really matters when we look at what everyone in the world is presumably supporting, true democracy.
Muneeb Hussain
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Times Are Changing
Billions of years ago, when the earth was born, when the first golden rays of sunshine shone upon its lush plains, when nature thrived in undisputable harmony, when mere existence was drenched in purity, Gaia – Mother Earth – couldn’t have possibly foreseen the disastrous course of events that were to wear her down, tear her apart, shatter her completely.
We talk about milestones and progress and covering leaps and bounds. We talk about sustainability and diversity and interdependence. Each day, we take new steps; uncover the secrets of life that have been mystifying the inhabitants of earth since the beginning of time. We are living in an age where we have proven that nothing is impossible for the human race.
Speaking of discoveries, let us step back into the weathered and worn pages of history, into the life of a little boy thrown out of school at the tender age of nine for being ‘retarded’. We’re talking about Einstein here, incase you’re feeling lost.
Einstein, with his theory of relativity, Swedish braniacs Marie and Pierre Curie and her discovery of radium and polonium and further developments carried out by Lise Meitner and Neils Bohr, took the world by storm; gave birth to an idea that was to change the face of the earth as we see it today – harnessing nuclear energy – and, in turn, paved away for the deadly nuclear bomb.
We have delved into discoveries, making our lives simpler, easier and more manageable. Progression has caused the human race to accomplish feats that seemed impossible just a few generations ago. Coal, oil and today, nuclear energy poses to take the position of the fuel of the future. Less than five kilograms of Uranium possess the ability to produce energy equivalent to several thousand tones of coal. As we sit in our bedrooms, rattling off facts and figures at the tips of our fingers, we ignore a possibility that may, very soon, turn into reality.
Nuclear destruction. 1945. World War Two. Total loss of lives: 50 to 70 million
6th and 9th of August of 1945; two atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Within these few minutes, the lives of hundreds of people plunged into chaos. Utter misery.
The severe effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki.
200,000 had died by 1950, due to cancer and other long-term effects.
Indeed, life has become a lot simpler.
On April 26th, 1986 the fourth reactor of a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine, exploded at 1:23 AM local time, resulting in the expulsion of radioactive material and consequently, the evacuation of about 135,000 people. Radioactive particles settled on trees, killing approximately 400 hectares of pine forest.
On the 28th of Match 1979, the US of A experienced its worst nuclear accident – a partial meltdown of the reactor core at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. A recent study concluded that the death rates for infants, children and the elderly soared in the two years that followed after this incident, in Dauphin and surrounding regions.
Turning back to Mother Earth here, as she withers with pain, threatens to crack under the pressure and strain inflicted upon her – do we stop to think? Do we bother disengaging ourselves from our entirely self-absorbed, self-centered lifestyles to pause, stop and think? Think about the colossal consequences of our seemingly harmless actions. And most importantly, do we realize where we’re headed?
Zuha Siddiqui
FY L
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
What Will Happen to Libya?
It has been 8 arduous months since the revolutionary uprising by the anti –government rebels against Col. Muammar -el Qaddafi and while he has been deposed two months ago, Libya is still walking a tight rope as support for the ousted dictator still exists and poses a threat to the Transitional National Council which has taken temporary control of the Libyan government. After a month of much needed peace in the volatile country, fighting broke out on Friday between the rebel fighters and armed men which raised cries of support for Col. Muammar –el Qaddafi. Though there were no reports of casualties, this incident will no doubt be a worrying sign for the provisional government and draw more focus to the last of Qaddafi’s strongholds in Libya – The coastal city of Surt and the desert enclave of Bani Walid. The hundred’s of fighters that occupy this area are a “resilient and fierce” threat as said by The commander of NATO’s air campaign, Lt. Gen. Ralph J. Jodice II.
Though it is difficult to predict how well the eventual interim government of Libya will handle the running of the country, a lot of concerns are being voiced about the Islamist nature of the current leadership and how it will play out in the eventual handling of the country. The most influential politician in the country is arguably Ali Sallabi and though he has no official title he is revered by the masses as an Islamic scholar and populist orator.
The most powerful military leader is Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an ex-leader of a group believed to have close ties with Al Qaeda.
However the people of Libya are not worried and have reinforced their support for a democratic system which they believe the interim government will adapt to the best of its abilities. Therefore, it is not surprising that an anti-Islamist, anti-Sallabi rally in Martyrs’ Square on drew only a few dozen demonstrators. Jeffrey D. Feltman, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs also believes that the government will adopt a moderate path in the future. “Based on our discussions with Libyans so far,” he said, “we aren’t concerned that one group is going to be able to dominate the aftermath of what has been a shared struggle by the Libyan people.”
Presently though, Libya is still covered by a shroud of uncertainty but the future does seem bright politically for the country that’s been marred by killings and bloodshed since the turn of the year.
The most powerful military leader is Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an ex-leader of a group believed to have close ties with Al Qaeda.
However the people of Libya are not worried and have reinforced their support for a democratic system which they believe the interim government will adapt to the best of its abilities. Therefore, it is not surprising that an anti-Islamist, anti-Sallabi rally in Martyrs’ Square on drew only a few dozen demonstrators. Jeffrey D. Feltman, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs also believes that the government will adopt a moderate path in the future. “Based on our discussions with Libyans so far,” he said, “we aren’t concerned that one group is going to be able to dominate the aftermath of what has been a shared struggle by the Libyan people.”
Presently though, Libya is still covered by a shroud of uncertainty but the future does seem bright politically for the country that’s been marred by killings and bloodshed since the turn of the year.
Muhammad Ahmad Altaf
FY K
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
World Affairs Society Art Competition 2011
Winner : Mazia Syed FY - W
Runner Up : Shanze Farooq SY - M
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)