Revolution in South Asia

An Internationalist Info Project

Bhattarai comforts Indian capital, slams his Maoist party

Posted by redpines on September 3, 2011

This is a disturbing new interview from Baburam Bhattarai, who is vice chairman of the UCPN(M) and now Prime Minister of Nepal. He takes pains to insure Indian capitalists that their investments will be protected, despite the fact that Nepal has already suffered greatly from Indian economic and cultural expansionism. Unfortunately, he is far less generous to members of the UCPN(M).

 Bhattarai discusses the radical left  within the Maoist party, saying they will be outmaneuvered and marginalized:

“In a communist party, two line struggles are natural and we have successfully managed it so far and we will manage it in the future. I don’t see much obstacle. Even if some leaders and cadre may oppose or some splinter groups may move out, even then it won’t make much impact on the political line followed by the party.”

Bhattarai also claims that the recent decision to hand over the arms of the People’s Liberation Army to a Special Committee was undertaken at his “initiative”. Interestingly, he doesn’t claim that the decision was made through normal party mechanisms. 

The interview originally appeared in The Hindu

‘Nepal won’t jeopardize any genuine Indian interest’

by Prashant Jha

September 3, 2011

In the middle of negotiations over cabinet formation and the future of the Maoist combatants, Nepal’s new Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattaraitook time out for an exclusive interview to The Hindu on Friday afternoon at his office in Singha Durbar, the government secretariat. He spoke about the political challenges, the roadmap to achieve his stated objectives, and relations with India. Excerpts:

You had consistently argued for a consensus government, but are now heading a majority government. Why did efforts at forging a national consensus fail?

I am still for a consensus form of government because according to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution, we need to take major decision through consensus. The Special Committee responsible for the integration process has to function through consensus and the constitution has to be adopted through a two-thirds majority. So to complete major tasks of peace process and write a new constitution, we need a broad consensus among the major parties. If we have a consensus government, it would facilitate those two processes. That conviction still prevails. But unfortunately, since that could not happen, the second choice was to start with a majoritarian and work for a consensus government. Even though I was elected by a majority, my efforts are directed towards forging consensus. Immediately after my election, I reached out to the Nepali Congress, UML and other parties. I hope it will bear fruit soon.

But how will this consensus come about?

I want the support of the major parties basically for the completion of the peace process, especially integration and rehabilitation of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) cadres. We have already chalked out a time frame of one and a half months. If we reach broad consensus, we can implement it and stick to the one and a half month deadline. By that time, NC and UML will also join the government and this government will take the shape of a national consensus government. That has been my effort.

Many have termed the Maoist-Madhesi alliance as ‘unnatural’, since the Madhes movement had a strong anti Maoist orientation. What is its basis?

It is my conviction that Maoists and Madhes based parties are natural allies because on many cardinal principles and political line, there is common ground between these two forces. The agenda of the Maoists is restructuring of the state and society. And the Madhes based parties came forward with the agenda of the federal restructuring of the state. These are the basic issues, which the earlier traditional NC and UML could not address. Maoists and Madhesi parties came through People’s War and People’s Movement and have common agenda. This should have happened much earlier. I am confident that this natural alliance has brought a new dawn in Nepalese politics.

Intra-party dynamics

Given the tensions in the past, are you confident of the support of your party chairman, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’?

I have full support of my chairman, comrade Prachanda. Though we have gone through series of ideological and political struggle, we have been in the same party committee at the leadership level for the last twenty years. We know each other. Despite our differences, there are a lot of commonalities. Our personal capacity is also more in the nature of complementarities, rather than competitiveness. We need each other. I need the chairman and the chairman needs me. Ideologically, politically and personally, continuity between two of us has been prevailing and will prevail in the future. I am fully confident of the full support of the chairman.

What about the third component of the party, senior vice chairman Mr Mohan Vaidya ‘Kiran’? He has already opposed your decision to handover keys of the arms container.

There was some confusion about this so called handover issue. This is a part of the integration process. It is implied in the CPA, and the earlier schedule worked out by the Special Committee. It is not a question of handover, but taking the process forward. Formally, it had already been decided that the PLA and cantonments would be looked after by the Special Committee but in practice, there were some difficulties. After formation of my government, I took the initiative in consultation with major parties and practically handed over the PLA, cantonments and cadres and weapons to the SC. In that SC, both PLA and Nepal Army are there. It is not a question of surrendering to the state, but handing over to the SC which is a joint committee. So some of our cadres were misled and resorted to opposing the formal decision of the government and the party. The party chairman has issued a statement fully supporting the decision of the SC. I am confident that an overwhelming majority of the leaders and cadre of the party will go along with the decision of the government.

But this goes beyond the key issue. There seems to be a school of thought within the party which is opposed to the whole process. Can they obstruct it, or potentially cause a split?

There has been a consistent two line struggle in the party over the political line followed since 2005. A section of the leadership within the party has had some reservation about the line pursued so far, but the overwhelming majority of the leadership and cadre are firmly behind this political line which has charted out a unique path of political transformation in Nepal. In a communist party, two line struggles are natural and we have successfully managed it so far and we will manage it in the future. I don’t see much obstacle. Even if some leaders and cadre may oppose or some splinter groups may move out, even then it won’t make much impact on the political line followed by the party.

Peace and constitution

What is the meeting point on the contentious issues regarding the future of Maoist combatants?

We have been discussing the basic issues of integration, but have not reached a final agreement. First, as far as modality is concerned, we have more or less agreed that a separate directorate will be created under the Nepal Army. Second, on norms, we have proposed that international norms of security forces will be obeyed by all members to be integrated. But there will be certain concessions on age, education, marital status etc. Third, on ranks, we have proposed that our senior commanders will be brought back for political work and junior commanders can be adjusted. A technical committee consisting of members from both sides can resolve the issue. The fourth issue is package for those opting for rehabilitation or voluntary retirement or golden handshake. We are working out an honorable settlement.

And the last issue is numbers. Once you decide the package going for voluntary retirement and rehabilitation, then those left out with automatically determine the numbers. That way, we proposed a figure between eight and ten thousand. In our agreement with Madhesi parties, the number agreed to is around 7000. Other parties have come to about 6000. We will finally settle around 7000; that should be the compromise number. If that happens, we can immediately start the process of regrouping which can be completed in one month. And then, within two weeks, we should be able to complete the process of integration.

Your party has asked for a combat function for the directorate, while the other parties want to restrict it to relief and development work. What should be the mandate of the force?

Whenever you integrate into an army, then this combatant and non comabatant issue becomes a non issue. The international definition of the army should apply here also. There is no point in raking this issue up. The basic norms and qualifications for the army should apply to everybody.

There is suspicion that a part of the money given to the combatants as ‘golden handshake’ will be used to fill in Maoist coffers.

It is time to get over this kind of mistrust. The Maoist party, being a principled party based on firm political and ideological convictions, does not believe in duping people. The package will be utilized for the welfare of the PLA cadre. There is no question of the party taking away money from them. The main point is whether the state can bear that burden. So we have proposed that the amount can be paid in installments of they can be paid pension. This type of modality can be applied and we are open to it.

One of the points in the agreement with Madhesi parties is withdrawal of cases against all those accused during the war and movements and general amnesty. Isn’t this a grave travesty of justice, and won’t it lead to impunity?

There is already an agreement in the CPA for withdrawal of cases against political leaders and cadres stamped by the old state during the insurgency and People’s Movement. We have only said that we will implement the earlier agreement. Maoists and Madhesi parties have come through struggle and movement. So naturally pending cases should be withdrawn. It happens everywhere. This has nothing to do with human rights issue. We are fully committed to obey human rights. And this does not mean impunity for criminals. This is a question of political cases, and I don’t think there will be any problem in it.

NC has asked for the formation of a state restructuring commission while your party and Madhesi front has rejected it. How will the discussion of federalism go forward?

Since the CA committee on state restructuring has already given a report, forming another commission will be a waste of time. We have instead proposed there should be a committee of experts that can assist federal restructuring. We have opposed it on technical grounds. In principle, we are not opposed to SRC but it is too late.

Is the three month extension of the CA enough?

Three months is not enough. If you go by the schedule of the CA, we need at least six to nine months. Three months is not enough, so we will need another extension. But let us try our best to take this process forward in the next three months and then, if need be, we can extend it again.


Your party has often criticized India for its role in domestic Nepali politics? What was the Indian stance during the government formation process this time around?

Nepal is sandwiched between two huge states of India and China. Historically, our sovereignty and independence has been maintained by having well balanced relations with these two big neighbours. Practically, we are more closely integrated with India, with an open border and closer economic ties. So we have more interaction with India and more problems also, which sometimes creates misunderstanding. The Maoist party and I am personally convinced we need to work more closely with India. Practically, we have to do more business with the government and people of India. Despite certain misgivings in the past, I am confident we will have a very good working relationship in the future. As far as India’s role in government formation is concerned, I don’t think there is any role for any outside power in making and breaking governments in a sovereign country. But at times, certain misgivings arise. My own conviction is that the political process in Nepal should be decided by the people and political parties of Nepal. But we need the goodwill and good wishes of the neighbours like India.

What will be your approach to India’s security concerns that officials usually bring up, like fake Indian currency notes, the use of the open border by militants, lack of movement on extradition treaty?

There are security concerns of both India and China in Nepal. We are sensitive to those genuine concerns and we will address those concerns of both sides. I am confident I can win the goodwill of both our neighbours.

Indian investors in Nepal have often complained of harassment and attacks by the Maoists. What is your stance towards the investors and how will you protect their investment?

Our party’s public position is that we need foreign direct investment in Nepal though the priorities will be decided by the Nepal government. There is no question of blocking the economic investment by Indian businesses or anybody else. Unfortunately, during this transition period, there have been certain misgivings and certain undesirable and unfortunate incidents have taken place. That is not in consonance with the official position of the party. I would like to assure all the foreign investors, both in India and elsewhere, that you are most welcome to invest in Nepal and the government will provide full security. Recently, we have passed a legislation for an investment board to facilitate investment within the country and I am trying to expedite that process.

Are you in touch with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) in any way?

No, no. There is no question of our having relations with other revolutionary movement elsewhere. Ideologically and politically, there can be some commonalities. But we don’t have any direct or indirect relation with the ML movement.

China has recently proposed a wide ranging security treaty with Nepal. Will you take that forward?

We will look into all the proposals put forward by both neighbours, India and China. There have been certain treaties and agreements pending for some time. And we will have a fresh look into it, keeping in mind the mutual interests of Nepal and our neighbours. I am very open. With India too, there are certain agreements pending for some time. We will look into it and try to finalise it.

What is your expectation from policymakers in Delhi?

I would like to appeal to our friends in India that Nepal is not anti-Indian. We want to have good friendly relations with India. Historically, we have had very good relations with the people of India. I myself studied and spent 12-13 years in India. There is a lot of room for cooperation between the two countries. I would like to assure that Nepal won’t jeopardize any genuine interest of India in Nepal, security or economic or otherwise. What I expect is we need cooperation to stabilize peace, democracy and development in Nepal. Being a sovereign, independent country, we would like to maintain balanced relations with all our neighbours. And that should not be seen as being anti-Indian. We have no intention of being anti-Indian and want to be good friends with India.

On a personal note, you mentioned you studied and spent many years in India. Any fond memories that you want to share?

I have a lot of fond memories. Firstly, I went to Chandigarh to study architecture in 1972 under the Colombo Plan scholarship. I spent five years there. In 1977, I came to Delhi and did my masters in town and country planning from the School of Planning and Architecture. In 1979-80, I joined Jawaharlal Nehru University and stayed till 1985 to complete my PhD. What I am today is because of the academic qualifications and political training I got. I will never forget those good experiences, especially those formative days in JNU where we used to have heated and intense political and ideological debates. That played a big role in charting my political career. I will always carry fond memories of my association with JNU.


15 Responses to “Bhattarai comforts Indian capital, slams his Maoist party”

  1. Gary said

    “Are you in touch with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) in any way?

    No, no. There is no question of our having relations with other revolutionary movement elsewhere. Ideologically and politically, there can be some commonalities. But we don’t have any direct or indirect relation with the ML movement.”

    There is NO QUESTION of having relations with “other” revolutionary movements elsewhere?

    No relationship at all with the international “ML movement”?

    These comments are damning.

  2. eric ribellarsi said

    And what I also find damning is his subtle threat of violence against Kiran/Biplab’s people if they challenge Indian capital.

  3. siva said

    What does one expect from a revisionist of his calibre?

  4. Mike E said


    People expect many things from many political forces — because not everyone sees what you see, or thinks what you think.

    And (obviously) many people (inside and outside) nepal expect good things from Bhattarai.

    To respond to every turn of events with “what do you expect?” is an expression of removing yourself from actual political struggle to raise the understanding of many different people. Mao called this kind of ineffectual know-it-allism as: “gesticulating
 criticizing.” If you know important truths — then find more effective and less sour ways of expressing them than “I told you so.”

  5. Red Salute — Lal Salaam said

    Bhattarai says in his own words that his priorities are uniting with the RAW-directed Madhesi parties, Indian capitalists and and that he speaks with nothing but disdain for the majority of his own party. He speaks of his “political career” as if that is what thousands of common Nepalis sacrificed their lives for. These are words of corruption and betrayal.

    All this talk of “special committees” and “committees of experts” is just more bourgeois bullshit. He has no respect for the common people — and says NOTHING about land reform, re-writing the treaties with India that cripple Nepal, restructuring the state or (Royal) Nepal Army. All he speaks of is “investment” while ignoring the complete crisis of international capitalism. He is aware of this crisis, but speaks as a bourgeoisie, not a common person. He feels for the bourgeoisie of India more than the working people of Nepal.

    Even the African National Congress, when they betrayed the people’s movement in order to advance their “political careers” would say words of solidarity. Bhattarai can’t even bother that. No. All he sees is professional politicians. This is most distressing.

    The People’s War was not for Bhattarai’s personal career. It was for New Democratic Revolution. I fear Bhattarai will choose to rely on the old King’s army and his Indian bourgeoisie friends should the challenge to his “career” become too much. I fear Bhattarai, and Prachanda, will seek to avoid any democratic accounting for their “special committees of experts” within the ranks of the UCPNM. They fear the decision of the cadre and ignore the need of the people. Their sacrifices are being stolen by more of the corruption that betrayed the rebels of the first Janandolan and all struggles. Despair, drug addiction, prostitution, slavery to Indian capital— all are okay so long as Bhattarai gets his damned “career.”

    Truly he is a traitor if the word has any meaning. he should remember that the people of Nepal aren’t all suckling from the tit of capitalism like his political friends. I hope the brave soldiers of the PLA do not let these traitors destroy their lives and leave them defenseless.

  6. siva said

    It is not a matter of my saying “I told you so”. What did you expect me to do? Write a long essay about Bhattarai’s right opportunist line?
    There was little for me to say about Bhattarai’s ‘great achievement’ since I thought that most readers of these pages know enough about Bhattarai’s politics. (I hope that I am not wrong).

    If despite knowing his line, if as you say “many people (inside and outside) Nepal expect good things from Bhattarai”, I am sorry that my expectations of Bhattarai fall severely short of theirs.

    Many people expected good things to come out of revisionists when they shared power in different countries with the bourgeoisie. Many people expected miracles from Allende. It was always a mistake of underestimating what reaction is capable of doing.
    The harsh reality has been that there is no parliamentary road to socialism– now it has become not only socialism even social reform in the Third World.

    I have been suspicious of Bhattarai’s politics ever since I read his declarations about socialism for the 21st century. (Prachanda did surprise me with his vacillation –after he tasted parliamentary privilege– so that his ultimate somersault was no shock).

    There is still freedom of thought and if so many people expect good things to come out of Bhattarai leading the government, let me wish them that their dreams come true, but knowing very well that Bhattarai (especially if he is sincere to the Maoist goal) will not be allowed to do anything that will displease the NC and CPN-UML and their foreign master.

  7. arbanth said

    History has not been kind to those on the left who preached the parliamentary road to socialism.The credibility left parties once held as a genuine alternative to the right-wing pro-imperialist parties in the developing world has been badly compromised.One reason for this is the formation of parties preaching a social democratic line but in reality they never were willing to fight for social justice.Of course,it is foolish to expect them to do so.For they were only representing the interests of certain traditional elites neglected by the erstwhile colonial masters.Invariably the “left” had gone into all sorts of alliances and even helped them come to power dethroning the openly right-wing governments.Is parliamentary politics an option for the left anymore?If one cannot combine the electoral strength with a mass organisation capable of defending the revolutionary goals then Nepal will not become a source of inspiration for the oppressed everywhere.Let us hope the people will speak out LOUD and continue the journey towards a true republic while steadfastly defending the gains already made.I remember reading John Reed’s account on the October revolution in his book “Ten days that shook the world”.In an atmosphere of feet dragging and empty theorising on the part of many leaders,the representatives of the workers and peasants took a strong approach and argued for REVOLUTION.

  8. Kumar Sarkar said

    Everybody would agree with me that it is not an issue of personalities. Bhattarai is an honest anti-feudal ‘bhadralok’, who is living in an era of decadent global capitalism going through one of its worst crisis, but who is dreaming of instituting anti-feudal capitalism and democracy of the classical European type. He, because of his bhadralok class outlook, cannot rely on the peasantry for social advance and, instead, looks for allies in Nepal Congress party and Indian bhadraloks, who are ‘parliamentary democrats’ in his eyes, but in reality range from feudal to comprador reactionaries.

    The problem is: how to deal with the forces like Deng Xiaoping, CPI (Marxist) and Baburam Bhattarai’s in the so-called New Democratic revolution?

  9. siva said

    It is only ceaseless struggle that can keep counter-revolution at bay.
    While Deng & Co emerged after the revolution was made, Bhattarai & Co have preceded the revolution.

  10. Kumar Sarkar said

    History repeats itself?

    “Such is the political situation at the present time. Such are the three main political trends, corresponding to the three main social forces in contemporary Russia.”

    Two Tactics of the Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Lenin.

    The comparison with the present situation in Nepal, which is not a country of weak capitalism like Russia but is preedominantly feudal,is interesting.

  11. Kumar Sarkar said

    “An Urgent Political Question:

    At the present revolutionary juncture the question of the convocation of a popular constituent assembly is on the order of the day. Opinions are divided on the point as to how this question should be solved. Three political trends are to be observed. The tsarist government admits the necessity of convening representatives of the people, but it does not want under any circumstances to permit their assembly to be a popular and a constituent assembly. It seems willing to agree, if we are to believe the newspaper reports on the work of the Bulygin Commission,[2] to an advisory assembly, to be elected without freedom to conduct agitation, and on the basis of restricted qualifications or a restricted class system. The revolutionary proletariat, inasmuch as it is led by the Social-Democratic Party, demands complete transfer of power to a constituent assembly, and for this purpose strives to obtain not only universal suffrage and complete freedom to conduct agitation, but also the immediate overthrow of the tsarist government and its replacement by a provisional revolutionary government. Finally, the liberal bourgeoisie, expressing its wishes through the leaders of the so-called “Constitutional-Democratic Party”,[3] does not demand the overthrow of the tsarist government, does not advance the slogan of a provisional government and does not insist on real guarantees that the elections will be absolutely free and fair and that the assembly of representatives will be a genuinely popular and a genuinely constituent assembly. As a matter of fact, the liberal bourgeoisie, the only serious social support of the Osvobozhdeniye trend, is striving to effect as peaceful a deal as possible between the tsar and the revolutionary people, a deal, moreover, that would give a maximum of power to itself, the bourgeoisie, and a minimum to the revolutionary people—the proletariat and the peasantry.

    Such is the political situation at the present time. Such
    three main political trends, corresponding to the three main social forces in contemporary Russia. ”

    From ‘Two Tactics of Social Democracy in Democratic Revolutuion’ by Lenin.

    Russia before 1917 was a country of weak capitalism, with a class of liberal bourgeoisie. Nepal is predominantly feudal, but it has also a small class of liberal bourgeoisie, mainly present in the Nepali Congress party, which is an alliance of feudal and comprador class forces.

    The ‘small class of liberal bourgeoisie’ referred to above is probably the ‘bhadraloks’, who originated in the 17th-18th century industrial Bengal and consolidated during the 19th century Hindu socio-religious movements there, spreading to other parts of India and probably Nepal as well. These bhadraloks are half feudal and half bourgeois. Baburam Bhattarai and his followers seem to belong to this class. The role of this class in the modern democratic revolutions is still to be assessed in Maoism.

  12. Arbanth:
    History has not been kind to those on the left who preached the parliamentary road to socialism.

    History has not been kind to those on the left who have preached any road to socialism, has it? Whether that was by parliamentary means or by armed struggle.

  13. marwey said

    How was Bhattarai influenced by ML or revolutionized? or was he just blown by the wind into the UCPN due to the merging of their parties?

  14. arbanth said

    Joonas Laine:
    History has not been kind to those on the left who have preached any road to socialism, has it? Whether that was by parliamentary means or by armed struggle.

    Perhaps.At least in the initial stages,social revolutions in many countries did manage to achieve real progressive change.This inspite of all the reversals we have seen in the last century.The common denominator from Czarist Russia to China and all the way to Cuba was the understanding on the part of the revolutionaries that the completion of the revolution required firm but flexible strategies.In Chile,a fatal mistake was made by the progressive forces that resulted in the defeat and subsequent oppression of the Chilean masses.I can think of many instances(Malaysia,Peru)where state power has prevailed over armed insurrections.But I also know these lessons have served the cause as guides into the future.The collective search for justice and equality is stronger today because we have learnt not just from our brothers and sisters but from our enemies as well.I do not intend this as a call for blanket violence.When a movement is built on sacrifices and heroism,it is impossible for the oppressor to destroy it permanently with whatever means at his disposal.Look at the Indian experience.Back in the 70s one might have said after the brutal crushing that “history has not been kind”.But now even the proxy Prime minister they have over there calls it the No.1 security threat.Inspite of all the brutality the Indian establishment has unleashed we know and feel the revolution will succeed.One can find a lot of similarities between the Peruvian and Nepali revolutions.To me,comrades in Nepal have taken the revolution to the next level from where it was left off in Peru.Most importantly I see a genuine attachment to the cause as far as armed actions are concerned.This is why I believe history will be kind to those who took that path inspite of errors of all sorts committed by them.Empirically the best strategy at least to capture state power involves a mixture of mass,armed actions.

    Those who turned revolutionary ideas into reformist,ballet box oriented programs however are of a different kind.From the New-labour Blairites found in the Western world to the mainstream communist parties in the “rest” of the world,they have all willingly or unwillingly strengthened the hands of local and international reaction.This degeneration of the most “unkindest” type has virtually no exception among those who sought the parliamentary road to power.This is my argument.If Joonas will be happy only when a truly “communist” republic is formed somewhere or preferably all over the world then yes history has been unkind to all kinds of ACTIONS undertaken thus far.I am also curious to know what Joonas has to offer in terms of strategies?But if we believe it is the people who make history then there is no option but to salute the sincerity and commitment of those treading off the parliamentary path.One pathetic example of the mainstream left is the current state of decay it is in Sri lanka.Believe it or not,the genocidal Sinhala regime has the communists of the parliamentary kind as a coalition partner.I mean when thousands of innocent Tamils were killed in the so-called security zone in the north of the country there were leftist ministers in the government.Lest we forget the Blairites and the blessing they gave for criminal wars against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.You get the common denominator in this school of thought.This is what I meant Joonas Laine.I bow my head and honour those who remained sincere to the cause.I am restless to hear good news coming from the frontlines of the world.I know we shall be victorious because millions of us remain sincere to the cause.Hope springs eternal in the hearts of all communists.

  15. Kumar Sarkar said

    Pious sentiments and words, well appreciated, will not make revolution. Sincerity of purpose is not enough. The task is to learn from successes and failures. But, the learning process has to be scientific. This primarily requires ‘recognition of patterns’ in a series of phenomena.

    The first wave of successful revolutions eventually failed. Is there a pattern in these failures? Did these all fail due to internal degeneration or external pressures or a combination of both?

    The second wave of revolutions are continuing with one serious failure, Peru. Nepal was on the brink of victory just before, what appears to be, ‘flexible strategy’ brought a tactical blunder. Or, was it waiting to happen, conceived by a ‘liberal bourgeois’ thinking?

    Does the ‘nationalist bourgeois’ exist as a significant force in semi-colonial countries? Is Baburam Bhattarai an accident or the latest indicator of a pattern?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: