Connect with us


Rafale is Not Bofors, and that’s Why Modi Should Be Worried

The Kashmir Monitor





By Ajitesh Kir

To the uninitiated, the Rafale and Bofors scams (alleged, I might add) are – in a sense – mirror images of one another: both relate to multi-crore defence contracts; both encompass allegations against a prime minister; and both hinge on what a European arms supplier and an Indian business house did or did not do. But that is where the similarities end. What separates the two is not simply the 31 year-gap; the factual pattern in Rafale appears to vary a great extent.

With public interest in the contours of the Rafale deal growing, the time is perhaps ripe to disentangle the dissimilarities between the two scandals in independent India. Below, I present a brief history of how the Bofors case travelled through the courts, which indicates that Rafale’s legal journey could possibly be quite different.


Bofors, from radio reportage to courtroom catharsis

In 1977, the Indian Army forwarded a proposal for the purchase of medium range artillery to the Ministry of Defence. The choice for obtaining the artillery was shortlisted in 1982 from amongst French, Swedish, British, and Austrian arms companies. On March 24, 1986, an order was placed by the Government of India with M/s. A.B Bofors of Sweden for the supply of 410 155 mm field howitzer 77-B gun systems for a total amount of Rs 1437.72 crore. Before the contract was signed, Bofors gave a written undertaking on March 10, 1986, that they would not use any agents for the purpose of this contract; they also promised to reduce the price to the extent of commission they otherwise would have paid to such agents. The undertaking was necessitated by a government policy that prohibited any agents from being involved in the negotiation of defence contracts. It was this undertaking that became the focal point of controversy later on.

On April 16, 1987, over a year after the execution of the guns contract, Dagens Eko (‘Echo of the Day’), the news arm of the Swedish public radio broadcaster declared that Bofors had won this contract by paying bribes of around $5 million (out of the total $16 million pledged in bribes) to local agents, and that these agents had helped Bofors win support within the Indian Army, bureaucracy and the Congress party. The radio program created a massive storm, and a series of events unfolded quickly: the Swedish government ordered an inquiry; the Indian parliament set up a joint-committee to enquire into the Bofors contract; and the CBI set the legal process in motion.

The CBI registered a First Information Report (FIR) on January 22, 1990, to initiate the formal investigation process. This was when V.P. Singh was prime minister. On the basis of the evidence collected, a charge-sheet was filed in the trial court on October 22, 1999 (followed by a supplementary charge-sheet on October 9, 2000). This was when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was prime minister.

The case presented by the CBI in the trial court was that the payment of commission by Bofors to its local agents was contrary to its 1986 undertaking that it would not use any agents for the contract. The prosecution alleged that Bofors dishonestly led the Indian government to believe that there were no agents and thereby induced it to part with a higher amount, which included the commission that was later passed on to the agents. It was argued that the government was cheated to the extent of the commission amount, resulting in a wrongful loss. Notably, the prosecution did not contend that the commission to the agents constituted a bribe to/for public servants.

Disregarding the prosecution’s case, the trial court, in its order of November 14, 2002, also framed charges against two public servants – former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and former defence secretary S.K. Bhatnagar – both of whom had, by that time, passed away. The public servants were charged with abusing their official position in order to obtain a pecuniary advantage for others, an offence defined under Section 5(1)(d) of the erstwhile Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. It was alleged that these public servants deliberately took a hasty decision by awarding the contract to Bofors, even though the French arms supplier had quoted a lower rate.

On February 4, 2004, the Delhi high court (in Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB and Others. v. State through CBI) set aside the charges framed against the public servants; it held that there was no evidence to suggest that the public servants had misused their official position to award the contract to Bofors. The decision to purchase the guns from Bofors had been taken by the Indian Army’s committee of technical experts, who had based its decision on the gun system’s peculiar ‘shoot and scoot’ feature. None of the public servants had any say in selecting Bofors.

After scrutinising the decision-making process, the high court found that “there is no evidence on record to suggest that either Rajiv Gandhi or Bhatnagar used any direct or indirect influence on anybody including [the] technical committee of Army experts or [the] negotiating committee.” The CBI’s argument that the public servants created circumstances under which the Bofors contract was executed with undue haste, disregarding the renewed offer made by Sofma of France, did not appeal to the high court.

While the high court, in its judgment of February 4, 2004, quashed the charges against the public servants, it did not quash the charges against the alleged local agents and Bofors for entering into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the government of India.

One year later i.e. on May 31, 2005, the high court (in Srichand P. Hinduja & Ors v. State through CBI) also quashed the charges against Bofors and some of the alleged agents, for lack of admissible evidence. In the meantime, proceedings against the former managing director of Bofors and an alleged agent were abated, following their death. The last surviving prosecution in the Bofors case – against one of the alleged agents – was withdrawn in 2011.

An appeal (filed by a private person) against the May 31, 2005, judgment of the high court, concerning the quashing of charges against some of the alleged agents and Bofors, is still pending in the Supreme Court. There is no pending appeal against the February 4, 2004, judgment of the high court, where the charges against the public servants were dropped. Recently, on November 2, 2018, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the CBI’s special leave petition against the May 31, 2005, judgment. The CBI had filed this petition in February 2018 – after an inordinate delay of 4522 days. The Supreme Court observed, however, that since the CBI is a party to the private person’s appeal, it would be heard in that matter. Whether that matter itself will proceed or not is unclear at this stage; on January 16, 2018, the Supreme Court directed the private person to explain his locus standi in filing the appeal.

First, the trial in the Bofors case did not proceed beyond the stage of framing of charges for want of relevant and admissible evidence. This is how the Bofors legal tale seems to end (unless, of course, the Supreme Court writes an epilogue, which seems doubtful).

Second, it was not the prosecution’s case in the trial court (based on the evidence collected and relied upon in the charge sheets) that the public servants had accepted a bribe, or that the local agents had accepted a bribe on behalf of the public servants. But the trial judge framed charges against the public servants anyway. Once the order framing the charges reached the high court, the CBI candidly admitted that they had no evidence to support these charges.

If we had a Lokpal in place, complaints of corruption relating to the Rafale deal would have been filed before the Lokpal; the present petitions filed before the Supreme Court would have been unnecessary.

Third, the CBI’s legal stance in the high court against the public servants, centring around intentional misuse of official position, was probably not part of its initial plan. As per the high court, the CBI adopted this legal stance because it had found no evidence of bribe taking by, or on behalf of, the public servants. It noted that the CBI “like a drowning person clutched a flimsy straw by introducing the doctrine of ‘misusing an official position’…purely on the conjectural and inferential premise that by hastening the decision in favour of Bofors and without considering the offer of a rival…the public persons had misused their official position.”

Fourth, the principal allegation, indeed the heart of the prosecution’s case, focused on the role of private parties (Bofors and its alleged agents), not public servants. To be clear, the allegation related to the fraudulent deception and consequent inducement into executing the contract, causing wrongful loss.

The Rafale legal tale has just begun, but it might unfold faster than Bofors. This is a different age ­– the age of 2G and coal and Supreme Court monitored investigation and Supreme Court appointed special public prosecutors/special courts. This is also a different case, focusing more on the decision-making of the public servants, and less on the role of private parties. Remember, even the 2G and coal trial judgments focused on the prescribed guidelines, the avowed rules and procedures, and whether the public servants had followed or flouted the same – intentionally or otherwise – in reaching their decision.

For now, the pen, as it were, is in the Supreme Court’s hands. The Supreme Court’s observations in the pending writ petitions could either pave the way for a CBI investigation (possibly, court-monitored, considering the recent CBI imbroglio), or bring this legal tale to an abrupt end.

And since we are contemplating on what the Supreme Court’s next step will be, it is, most certainly, worthwhile to ask: Why is the Supreme Court deciding the issue of whether or not these corruption allegations merit an inquiry or investigation? Did we not pass a legislation four years ago to create an institution to do precisely this? As Bob Dylan famously sang, “the answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.” Whilst I bemoan the unjustified delay on the part of the government in appointing the Lokpal, Prime Minister Modi has far more reasons to regret it – at least at this stage.

Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 prohibits the Lokpal from inquiring into any matter “involved in, or arising from, or connected with,” an allegation of corruption against the prime minister, insofar as it relates to international relations, external and internal security. This prohibition, however, will not operate, if a full bench of the Lokpal considers the initiation of inquiry and at least two-thirds of the members of the Lokpal approve of such inquiry (which is then to be held in camera).

If we had a Lokpal in place, complaints of corruption relating to the Rafale deal would have been filed before the Lokpal; the present petitions filed before the Supreme Court would have been unnecessary. Whether the Lokpal would have proceeded to inquire into the Rafale deal, considering that the corruption allegations against the prime minister possibly relate to external security, is an open question; besides, the answer is no more relevant.


The Kashmir Monitor is the fastest growing newspaper as well as digitial platform covering news from all angles.



Faiz and Manto

The Kashmir Monitor



By Ali Madeeh Hashmi

January 18 was Manto’s 64th death anniversary and it should be noted that Manto has been experiencing something of a renaissance for quite a few years. Manto’s best short stories like ‘Toba Tek Singh’, ‘Mozail’, ‘Hattak’, ‘Naya Qanoon’, ‘Khol Do’ and countless others remain peerless both as works of art as well as searing commentaries on their times. However, even Manto’s most ardent admirers admit that his work is wildly uneven. Exquisite short stories are mixed in with works that are at best hurried and slapdash, at worst incomprehensible. Most of this is, no doubt, a result of the life that Manto lived: a life marred by poverty, alcoholism and mental illness.

In and of itself, this is of no moment. After all, an artiste is free to create and propagate his or her work anyway he likes. But the continuing attention on Manto has had the result of perhaps diverting attention away from a number of other gifted writers some of whom were his contemporaries and some who came later. Writers like UpendranathAshk, Krishan Chander and even the great MunshiPremchand. In addition, later writers like the exquisitely subdued Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Hasan Askari have not received the kind of attention or accolades that have accrued to Manto.


February 13 was Faiz’s 108th birthday and it seems appropriate to examine what connection (if any) existed between the two. In a couple of interviews, initially noted in Dr Ayub Mirza’s book Hum keThehrayAjnabi, Faiz said: “Manto was my student at the MAO College Amritsar (Faiz’ first job after finishing his MA)”. Faiz went on to note affectionately: “He never studied much, he was mischievous. He…didn’t respect anyone. But he respected me and considered me his ‘ustaad’”.

A recent column in a leading Urdu daily devotes a considerable amount of ink to disproving that Manto was ever Faiz’s student. It points out, correctly, that Faiz was appointed a lecturer in English at the MAO college Amritsar in 1935, probably in the latter half (the exact date is not available). Manto had, by then, already become a translator of some renown having translated and published some Russian short stories as well as Oscar Wilde’s play Vera among others. Manto did join the MAO college Amritsar as a student in 1933 but most likely had dropped out by the time Faiz joined as a lecturer. Subsequently, Manto was briefly a student at the Aligarh Muslim University but had to drop out after being diagnosed with tuberculosis. He returned to Amritsar in August 1935, probably right around the time that Faiz joined MAO college as a teacher. Manto then travelled back and forth between Amritsar and Delhi for treatment and in May 1936, on the advice of his physician moved to Bombay and later (after partition) to Lahore.

It seems obvious that Manto and Faiz were, in fact, present in Amritsar around the same time (mid-late 1935 till summer 1936). Faiz was an up and coming poet having received some acclaim for his poetry while still a student at Government College Lahore and then Oriental College from around 1929 till 1934/35. His poems had been published in Government College’s esteemed literary journal Ravi and his teachers, leading literary lights of the day including Sufi Ghulam Mustafa Tabassum, Dr MD Taseer and Ahmad Shah Bokhari ‘Patras’ were aware of his poetic talents.

In addition, in Amritsar, he was introduced to Syed SajjadZaheer and quickly became one of the leading organisers of the newly emergent All India Progressive Writer’s Association (AIPWA). All through this time, Faiz would undoubtedly have been reciting his poetry both at mushairas and perhaps private events even though the publication of his first volume of poetry Naqsh-e Faryadi was still some years away (1941). Many of Manto’s short stories were also published in the quarterly Adab-e Lateef which Faiz briefly edited around 1939-41. Faiz also defended Manto in court more than once. In Dr Ayub Mirza’s book, he said “Every time he (Manto) would be taken to court, I would be one of the defense witnesses. He was arrested four times; for ‘KaaliShalwar’, ‘ThandaGosht’, ‘Khol Do’ and ‘Dhuan’. The first three times we managed to get him off.”

Manto was actually prosecuted six times for alleged pornography. In addition to the stories Faiz mentions above, he was also taken to court for his stories ‘Bu’ and ‘OoperNeechayaurDarmiyan’. In 1949, Faiz was the convener of the Press Advisory Board tasked with rendering a judgment about whether Manto’s notorious short story ‘ThandaGosht’, published in a special edition of the magazine Javed in March 1949 was a work of art or pornography. In short, the two were well acquainted.

When Faiz says in his interview “Mantoapnashagirdtha”, he clearly means ‘Shagird’ not in the narrow sense of a student enrolled in a class one is teaching in a college or university but someone who seeks guidance from another who he considers more learned or erudite. In addition, when Faiz says

“Wohmeriizzatkartathaaurmujhayustaadmaantatha”, he clearly means ‘Ustaad’ in the Eastern/Indo-Pakistani sense, again, someone learned, older, more worldly who can be confidante/guide and mentor.

Manto, to my knowledge, never referred in writing to any association with Faiz and, fairly early on, dissociated himself from the AIPWA. From his meteoric rise as a short story and then film writer in the late 1930s and early 1940s, to his legal battles over being an alleged pornographer, through his fateful decision to migrate from Bombay to Lahore only to be dogged by continuing legal troubles, alcoholism, mental illness and penury into an early grave, he walked his own lonely path, refusing to compromise what he considered his artistic integrity, refusing to draw a cloak over the ‘unbearable society’ in which he lived.

In 1955, he died in Lahore at the young age of 43. Faiz, languishing in prison at the time under threat of a death sentence for the Rawalpindi ‘Conspiracy’ case wrote: “I was grieved to hear of Manto’s death. Respectable members of our community, who have neither the awareness of the fragility of an artiste’s heart nor any sympathy for it, will probably say that Manto himself is to blame for his death. But no one will wonder why he did this…The problem is that when life and art are in conflict with each other due to social circumstances, one of these has to be sacrificed. The other possibility is of mutual compromise, in which some part of both is sacrificed. The third possibility is to unite the two into a subject of struggle, which only great artistes are capable of.”

Faiz referred in another interview to Manto’s ‘exquisite short stories’ and went on to say “but after 1950, he lost his way. The film or newspaper people would give him a bottle of liquor and have him write whatever they wanted”. None of this is to take away from the greatness of Manto which is universally acknowledged but perhaps we can stop quibbling about what relationship (if any) he had with Faiz; student, peer or fellow artist. Neither one of them is with us today but their art is, and that’s the way it should be.

Continue Reading



The Kashmir Monitor



By Umair Khan

The relationship between Pakistan and India has seen many ups and downs — probably more downs than it should have. Several books have been written to explore the intricacies of this sensitive relationship as both sides try to present arguments from their own perspective in an effort to legitimise their policies and actions. India and Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds is one such endeavour undertaken by Avtar Singh Bhasin, a researcher and former Indian diplomat.

Before writing this book, Bhasin had compiled a 10-volume magnum opus titled India-Pakistan Relations 1947-2007: A Documentary Study comprising original political and diplomatic documents from the archives of the government of India pertaining to Pakistan-India relations. In a way, his new book is a distilled form of the earlier, encyclopaedic work.


India and Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds consists of 34 chapters dedicated to important events in the region’s history in chronological order. The book starts from the woes of Partition and continues up to the mistrust each country holds for the other even today. Looking back over centuries of recorded history of the Indian subcontinent, Bhasin rightly points out that “at no time in the medieval history of India was there a single ruler ruling the entire country from [the] east to the west and north to south. There were many rulers.” Thus, he gives credence to the claim that the Indo-Pak subcontinent has not been a political unity for a long period of time.

Starting proper from the fateful years of the post-Partition era, Bhasin admits that “certain actions of the Indian leaders at the very start of the journey, even if they were rational from the Indian standpoint, such as withholding Pakistan’s share of Sterling balances, the stoppage of canal waters, Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir, did not add to building trust between the two countries, and Pakistan cried foul.” However, he is not able to explain how these actions were rational from the Indian standpoint. The same has been admitted by another former Indian diplomat, ChandrashekharDasgupta, in his book War and Diplomacy in Kashmir, 1947-48, that “the Indian control over the irrigation headworks in Mangla could lead to the ruin of Pakistan’s agricultural economy.”

Bhasin presents the case of the generations of mistrust in a way that implies that the British favoured the Muslim League over Congress during the last days of their Raj, and favoured Pakistan over India during the early days of its independence. However, recent scholarship discredits the author’s claims. In a story published by the BBC in August 2007 titled ‘Partitioning India Over Lunch’, it was revealed that the memoirs of Christopher Beaumont, who was secretary to Sir Cyril Radcliffe, chairman of the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Commission, had been discovered by his son. Beaumont wrote in his memoirs that “the viceroy, Mountbatten, must take the blame — though not the sole blame — for the massacres in the Punjab in which between 500,000 to a million men, women and children perished.” Beaumont categorically stated that Mountbatten favoured the Indian side in the matter of the Radcliffe Boundary Award. This effectively negates Bhasin’s implications that the British favoured Pakistan over India.

When the locals of Kashmir revolted in 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru, in the words of Bhasin, “unable to opt for the military option, went to the UN considering it the better option. It was a panic decision.” However, the author feels that the platform of the United Nations — that had been created for the peaceful resolution of international disputes — was not the right platform for the Kashmir dispute to be taken to by India’s then prime minister. With hindsight, he believes that Nehru should have opted for the military solution instead.

When the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions in 1948 that asked India to let the people of Kashmir exercise their democratic right of self-determination through a free and fair plebiscite held under the auspices of the UN itself, Bhasin writes that “India had the option of rejecting the resolution since it had gone beyond its reference.” Here, any student of international law can underscore the fact that the UN Security Council has been authorised by the UN Charter to ensure peace and security in the world and its resolutions cannot be rejected by any state on the flimsy ground of “having gone beyond” the reference submitted by that state.

Nehru reneged on his promise to hold a free and fair plebiscite in Kashmir on the flimsy grounds that ground realities had changed after Pakistan made military pacts with the United States during the mid-1950s. Bhasin does not clarify how the signing of these military pacts by Pakistan could disbar the Kashmiri people from exercising their democratic right of self-determination.

Commenting on the nuclearisation of South Asia, Bhasin admits that after a nuclear test was conducted by India in 1974 (Pokhran I), Pakistan proposed in a statement issued in 1980 to declare South Asia a nuclear weapon-free zone. However, Bhasin states that “India was keen on a universal nuclear disarmament, something which was beyond the realm of possibility.” And when India again conducted a nuclear test in 1998 (Pokhran II), forcing Pakistan to conduct a nuclear test as well, Bhasin comments on the nuclearisation of South Asia by writing “both Vajpayee and then Nawaz Sharif did the most unexpected” without putting the blame where it primarily belongs — the side that introduced the nuclear arms race in South Asia.

Reading and understanding the history of Pakistan-India relations has never been more important. The geostrategic situation of the region demands that both the neighbours at odds with each other need to bridge the trust deficit somehow and find some way to move forward. While this book is a good source for understanding the Indian perspective and narrative on important issues, and it is rich in quoting primary source material, it falls somewhat short in the logical analysis of those references. Still, it can prove a good read for students of history and policymakers.

India and Pakistan:
Neighbours at Odds
By Avtar Singh Bhasin
Bloomsbury, India
ISBN: 978-9386826206


Continue Reading


Colours of Asia

The Kashmir Monitor



By Nijah S. Khan

Asia, the world’s largest and most populous continent, home to 48 countries each with their own diverse cultures and subcultures, languages and religions, presents an interesting situation: What is it to be ‘Asian’? It almost seems impossible that such an expanse of land would have narratives that are similar and relatable, given the uniqueness of the multitudes residing within each Asian nation. Yet in The Best Asian Short Stories of 2017, “different voices, viewpoints and themes combine to shed light upon various facets of the Asian experience,” writes Editor MonideepaSahu in her foreword.

The anthology contains thirty two stories ranging from the skyscrapers of Korea, to the deserts of Jordan, from the rainforests of Malaysia and the historic anguish of the Indo-Pak partition to the impoverished slums of Bangladesh, just to name a few. The particular focus of this omnibus of short stories is precisely the home-grown Asian identity, free from Western attempts to explain what they see as quaint and exotic. The stories ‘Jellybeans’ by Soniah Kamal and ‘The Spaces Between Stars’ by Gita Kothari, which are set in the United States of America are still narrated from the Asian perspective.


Though the call for submissions prescribed no set theme, larger motifs such as extreme poverty and the quest to improve one’s living situation through brutal hard work emerge across the stories; for example in ‘Ladybugs Fly From The Top’ by Korean writer Park Chan-soon, our acrophobic window-washing protagonist dangles daily from the tops of skyscrapers with only ropes attached to a small board, risking his life to make a living. A poor construction worker’s family converts to Christianity from Hinduism in the vain hopes that “their escape in the dead of night from one identity into another” will help transform their lot in life, in ‘Patchwork’ by Shikandin.

In MithranSomasudrum’s ‘The Yakuza Under the Stairs’, Clisty’s tale is a slightly less morose one of rags-to-riches, when the humble immigrant cab driver finds himself the unsuspecting recipient of a sizeable inheritance. The story takes a humorous turn when a pronunciation mixup leads our newly moneyed protagonist to accidentally order a Yakuza (i.e. Japanese gangster for hire) instead of a jacuzzi, for his new home in Thailand.

Of course, no collection of Asian narratives can be truly representative without reference to the long period of political turmoil and upheaval in the subcontinent, which forms five stories housed in this panorama, but each tale reveals a unique facet of the struggles countless individuals faced.

The troubled Kashmir forms the backdrop for Siddhartha Gigoo’s ‘The Umbrella Man’, the story of an inmate at an asylum which parallels the persecution of Hindu Pandits in Kashmir, cast out from their motherland as refugees, their identity as a community stands endangered with no salvation in sight. Left isolated and expelled from Kashmiri society, they are akin to the inmate at the asylum, “For the inmates, the world ended at that wall. Beyond that brick-and-stone wall was a vast darkness, an oblivion.” The horrors of war and its effects on the natural beauty of Kashmir and the lives of brave youths who enlisted are further illustrated in IlaksheeBhuyanNath’s ‘The Wetland’.

Our subcontinent, unfortunately, is not the only region affected by war: a young mother fleeing war-torn Aleppo is the central figure of Amir Darwish’s ‘Samar’, and the horrors of China’s Cultural Revolution and a childhood spent in starvation during a famine are elucidated by an elderly woman to her young niece growing up in a time of prosperity in Jeremy Tiang’s ‘1997’.

Female protagonists that are breaking away from the tropes of battered and oppressed women populate many of the short stories found in this collection, some like ‘Lilly from Fits and Starts’ by Yu-Mei Balasingamchow and ‘Moyna in Powerless’ (a translated work) written by Moinul Ahsan Saber rise above their difficult circumstances and take charge.

Lilly holds her own as the only female 24-hour delivery rider for McDonald’s, filling in for her brother to support her family while he is behind bars. Her beauty and femininity is juxtaposed with her no-nonsense and often defensive exterior, an occupational hazard for females who work in a male-dominated environment. “She moved the big bike stiffly, and although she was tall enough to swing her leg over it, things got unwieldy when she strapped on the bulky backpack they used for transporting the food. Once, Zul had offered to hold the backpack while she mounted, but she barked him off.”

The challenge taken on by the editors of this collection was no small feat. The American equivalent to this compendium The Best American Short Stories selects its contents from works already published in literary journals, whereas MonideepaSahu had to trawl through numerous submissions. Deciding what qualified as “the best” Asian short stories meant struggling through the deluge of entries and an acute reader’s block for Sahu.

Whilst inclusiveness was a goal when consolidating the selected submissions into a book, out of thirty two stories contained in the anthology only four are translated works- a number that one would expect to be far greater given the rich linguistic heritage of Asia. Central Asian short stories also remain conspicuously absent from the winning essays. Nevertheless, the goal of gleaning transferrable themes of humanity across the stories proves to be not only a successful one but an illuminating and enjoyable one in this inaugural endeavour in collecting the finest short stories written across Asia.

The Best Asian Short Stories 2017
Author: Edited by MonideepaSahu
Publisher: Kitaab, 2017
Pages: 454
Price: INR299

Continue Reading

Latest News

Subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor and receive notifications of new stories by email.

Join 990,851 other subscribers


February 2019
« Jan