Literary beauty of Kashmir Pishachi language

Let us Share

Pishachi language is the name of a Prakrit (regular) language that was well known in old India’s northwestern locale Kashmir. Sanskrit, the state language from the third century BC to the fourth century AD, is the opposite of Prakrit. The Pisacha (Prakrit) or Dardic language is the only one with writing and is perceived in the Indian constitution of 1950. Muslims compose it in Persian letters, while Hindus utilize a content near the Devnagari letters in order.

To comprehend the social premise of a specific local area, the investigation of its strict convictions is vital. Religion frames an all-unavoidable part of the way of life of a local area. Since ancient times, Kashmir has been a very religious place. The birth and development of progress prepared for various religions to jump up here. In pre-memorable times, there were no religions thusly except for individuals venerated different powers of nature like the Sun, the Moon, Thunder, water, Fire and so on. As the public developed, complex strict practices appeared. In Kashmir, the religion underwent a slew of transformations because of the rise of the priestly class.

The territory of the Pisachas, a group of mountain dwellers who lived in the mountains surrounding the Kashmir Valley, is referred to as the Pisacha kingdom. These clans were referenced in the Mahabharata along Other extraordinary clans. The Kashmiri pisachas were Duryodhana’s friends and allies. Pisacha armed force partook in the Kurukshetra battle under Bhagadatta the leader of pragjyotisha and other clans in the Himalayas. Bhagadatta, accompanied by the Magadhas, Kalingas, and Pisachas, was firmly committed to fighting. Pisacha tribes supported the Pandavas as well. Yudhishthira and the patachcharas, as well as the huns, pauravakas, and Nishadas, formed the two wings of the Pandavas’ military array. Pisacha tribes supported the Pandavas as well.

Pishachi language is the name of the Prakrit language which was predominant in the northwestern area of India ( Kashmir ). It has been determined that Pishachi is the source of Pashto and the Dard languages that are adjacent to it. The Pishachi language occupies a position in the broader language order that is, in the ways in which members of a culture refer to, classify, describe, and evaluate languages in relation to one another. It is a method for reorganizing a vast array of cultural practices. The Kashmiri language is viewed as Language in the gathering of Pishachi Dialects.

The fact that Pishachi has a grammar, vocabulary, and text corpus is one of its fundamental characteristics, or at least we have good reasons to believe that it did in the past. It definitely resembles a language.

Daṇḍin & Bhāmaha are among the earliest authors to mention the Pishachi language. The tenth-century commentator sees that “mixture” can include Pishachi as well as any other language, but specifically refers to Pishachi as an “additional” (adhik) language. An exception to the general rule is made when Daṇḍin mentions Pishachi a few verses later. After noting that certain genres are associated with languages, such as Sanskrit for Mahkvyas, he states that stories and related genres are written in all languages. The Bṛhatkathā is created in bhūtabhāṣā (bhūtabhāṣāmayīṃ).. It ought to be noticed that Daṇḍin does not utilize the word piśācabhāṣā or paiśācī, yet bhūtabhāṣā, which concedes to numerous understandings.

The answer comes from the well-known story of the Bṛhatkathā itself by Guṇāḍhya, one of the ministers for king Satavana, bet erroneously with his colleague Śarvavarman .I will give up Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabhramsa and other regional language ,the three languages (bhāṣātrayam) that are available to men if you can teach the king in six months. At the point when Śarvavarman gained otherworldly powers from Skanda and showed the lord in only a half year, Guṇāḍhya started his self inflicted outcast from Sātavāhana’s court.

He practiced austerity in order to bless the goddess Vindhyavasini and lived in the forests of the Vindhya mountains. She told him to look for Kanabhuti , After that, Guṇāḍhya joined a group of Pishachis who lived in the forest and learned their language. At the critical second when he meets Kāṇabhūti the occasion that sets off his memory of his previous existence the human Guṇāḍhya welcomes the Piśāca Kāṇabhūti in ‘the fourth language, the language of the bhūtas .

This story has a place with one of the Bṛhatkathā’s 11th century retellings, however it gives a reasonable and convincing reasoning for the negligible status of Paiśācī, which likely existed in the sources that these retellings depended on, and which regardless agreements impeccably with Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha’s seventh-and eighth-century grouping. There are two blueprints here, The first is the bhāṣātraya, the ‘three dialects’ that address the sum of human culture. The court dominates the representation of human culture in this tale, with a royal minister (sarvavarman or Gunadhya) instructing a king (Satavahana) in a language of universally recognized culture and power (Sanskrit).

The second could be referred to as a bhasacatuska because it contains “the fourth language,” but the story’s main point is that this kind of structure is fundamentally flawed. Paiśācī isn’t similar to the others, since it’s anything but a language of human culture, however the language of the individuals who ex hypothesi lie beyond it. Nor are the Piśācas only outside. On the off chance that Sātavāhana addresses dignified culture recall that Sātavāhana is extraordinarily enriched with information on Sanskrit and turns into a popular benefactor of writing the Piśācas .In this manner ‘fourth’ does not mean the fourth in that frame of mind of self-comparative things, yet contrastively characterizes the previous three things as a self-comparable gathering.

Paiśācī’s position opposite the dialects of culture can be represented with one more section from the Kuvalayamālā, finished by the Jain priest Uddyotanasūri in 779 CE.
To sum up a few early authors worked with an idea of the bhāṣātraya, which could be understood barely as the three dialects in which kāvya could be made (Daṇḍin), or comprehensively as the three sorts of dialects current among people (Soma deva) the language of the phantoms, although in some cases depicted as a ‘fourth’ or ‘extra’ language, most certainly fell beyond this idea, to the extent that we partner language with human culture particularly elegant culture and scholarly culture its very status as a ‘language’ is dicey. As a few 10th century Kannada and central india creators/ writers said there are three and a half dialects, and Paiśācī is the half. These conflicts were resolved by subsequent authors by making Paiśācī a “full” language.

Creator Rajasekhara who worked in central India around the turn of the 10th Century , tenaciously advanced a dream of cosmopolitan culture that was characterized by four dialects Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabhramsa and Paiśācī. For instance, in the beginning of his book Bālarāmāyaṇa, he says, “The Prakrit languages are naturally sweet, and the language of the gods is worth hearing.” Apabhramsa is very pleasant, and there are some excellent ghostly works there. There are various ways, yet these are the ones that are liked. The person who writes in these is for sure an expert writer.
Rajasekhara and Vagbhata demonstrate that, at a certain point, people began including Paisaci in their classifications of languages. Vagbhata, who wrote during the reign of Jayasimha (1125–43), makes the “language of the Bhutas” one of the four languages that constitute the “body of literature” (kavyasya kayatam).

Grierson idea of a language that is explicitly attached to a specific gathering who exist at a specific time and in a specific spot is precisely inverse to the cosmopolitan vision that Rājaśekhara offers a literary language that any poet deserving of the name can and should learn.
Literature Man (kavyapurusa) in Rajasekhara’s representation has a Sanskrit head, Prakrit arms, Apabhramsa hips, and Paisaca legs. This is obviously a progressive diagram of language rehearses, with Sanskrit on top and Paiśācī on the base, yet one that joins generally cosmopolitan dialects into a solitary body and subsequently prohibits the ‘other ways’ implied in the section from the Bālarāmāyaṇa.

Last but not least, Rajasekhara’s conception of the ideal court is quadrilateral and links one of the four languages to the other. From the foregoing, it might appear that Rajasekhara was motivated by symmetry when he made Paisaca to a full language. The theorization of a set of language practices that defined literary culture and connected it to broader sociopolitical realities is at the heart of Rajasekhara’s project, not just the names and number of languages at stake. Paiśācī’s change from non or half language into language was a genuine change and it requires a genuine clarification.
Two-fold development happened towards the finish of the 1st century . Close to this time, Paiśācī turned into an object of syntactic investigation a significant stage on the excursion from discourse to language while the bigger scholarly talk of which punctuation was a section progressively situated itself towards the theater and the models of language use, and language decision, that it gave.
Although later scholars have tended to view the rules for Paisaca in Prakrit grammars as either faithful descriptions of actual texts or as entirely new inventions (Sani), Rudrata another writer was one of the first to include Paisaca as a fully functional language in the ninth century.

He supplanted the prior pattern of ‘three dialects’ with a mapping of ‘six dialects’ (ṣaḍbhāṣā), in particular Prakrit, Sanskrit, Māgadha, Piśācabhāṣā, Sūrasenī and Apabhraṃśa. The mapping of ‘six dialects’, any place Rudraṭa himself got it from, would turn into the most steady and persevering through approach to ordering dialects in India, essentially through the impact of two authors who embraced it from Rudraṭa, Bhojadeva and Hemacandra. The earlier bhasatraya also included three of the languages on this list. Every one of these three compared to a classification of cosmopolitan writing where it was utilized, Sanskrit for organizations like mahākāvyas, Prakrit for skandhakas, and Apabhraṃśa for ausaras.

Rudraṭa adds three additional Two of them, Māgadha and Sūrasenī had been perceived by before creators as ‘provincial’ assortments of Prakrit, yet in this grouping, they are recognized from both Prakrit and its other ‘territorial’ assortments, like Lāṭī,
Rudraṭa’s rearrangement of the bhāṣātraya whether he affected it himself or found it in crafted by an ancestor can be made sense of by reference to two firmly related improvements, the emergence of multilingual Prakrit grammars and the growing influence of theater on Sanskrit scholarship. In the ninth century, both appear to have been in full swing in Kashmir. It is notable that ruler Jayāpīḍa (779-813 CE) named Bhaṭṭa Udbhaṭa as sabhāpatia overseer of the court’s scholarly people and that Bhaṭṭa Udbhaṭa started a long practice of concentrating on the Nāṭyaśāstra in Kashmir.

The identification of Bhamaha, the author of the Manorama commentary on Vararuci’s Prakrtaprakasa, with the author of the Kavyalankara, who lived in Kashmir around the end of the seventh century, is one assumption that could anchor this discourse in time and space. However, other than the name, nothing supports the identification. Nevertheless, it appears that a number of grammars containing rules for a number of languages appeared toward the end of the first millennium. Some of these grammars simply provided a list of localized exceptions, like Canda’s, while others provided distinct sets of rules that would transform the forms of a base language into those of a native language (vikti). The main language in this set was the scholarly language that had before been known as Prakrit, however which got the more unambiguous name of Mahārāṣṭrī under this new classificatory pattern. At the end of the first millennium, Prakrit grammar became the grammar of the Prakrits rather than that of Prakrit itself. Common of this inclination is the expansion of a few new parts to Vararuci’s Prākṛtaprakāśa.

Manorama’s commentary as the “vulgate” of the north. I will allude to their creator as ‘pseudo-Vararuci’. The chapter on “sauraseni” is not covered by Bhamaha’s commentary on its own. These parts portray Māgadhī, Paiśācī and Śaurasenī exactly the three dialects that Rudraṭa added to the more seasoned bhāṣātraya to create his bhāṣātaṭka. Namisadhu (1069), the commentator on Rudratas, provides a concise explanation of each of the six languages. Namisadhu makes an explicit connection by doing so between Rudrata’ s classification and the grammatical principles that underpin it. These are not just six languages rather, they are six languages that can be derived from one another by performing a series of regular transformations in succession. Canda’s Prakrtalaksana and Kramadisvara’s Samksiptasara are two other multilingual grammars that could be older than Hemacandra (1089–1172). The similarities between the descriptions of Namisadhu and pseudoVararuci have been noted by scholars for a long time.

In more general formulations like Rudrata’ s sadbhasa, their treatment of Paisaci is indicative of the grammatical framework in which this language was related to the other languages, primarily Sanskrit and Prakrit. This was crucial to the promotion of Paisaci to the status of a “full” language. The fact that both of these descriptions primarily consist of cancellations of rules for the “base language” (prakti) is interesting. Consequently Nami sadhu, who begins by saying that Paiśācī is equivalent to Prakrit with a couple of contrasts (prākṛtam eva kiṃcidviśeṣāt paiśācikam), needs to say that few of the standards for Prakrit don’t have any significant bearing in Paiśācī (prākṛtalakṣaṇāpavādaś cātra).

Both Paisaci and Prakrit lose the contrast between the retroflex nasal and dental, but Paisaci ends up with N, while Prakrit ends up with n. Based on only these standards, Paiśācī seems to be Prakrit with Sanskrit consonants, the sort of language that we currently call ‘Pali’. In any case, Nami sadhu takes care to make reference to a further trait of Paiśācī, not exclusively is a Sanskrit t never different, however once in a while even d is changed into t (dasya vā takāraḥ).

The ‘Paiśācī sound change’ starts Kramadīśvara’s treatment of Paiśācī in his Saṃkṣiptasāra which has been communicated in an extremely bad structure however here the replacement of all voiceless stops for voiced stops is required and regardless In these linguistic portrayals, Paiśācī has its spot close by different dialects, to be specific Śaurasenī and Māgadhī, that had not recently been incorporated either in that frame of mind (for instance, in the prior rendition of the Prākṛtaprakāśa) or in automatic compositions of scholarly language (for instance, in the bhāṣātraya).

This does not occur by chance. Śaurasenī and Māgadhī are, other than Sanskrit, the primary dialects of the theater.

Also, it appears to be probable that Prakrit language was impacted by the bigger reorientation of Sanskrit scholarly culture towards the theater, of which Kashmir was the Epicenter. Prakrit grammar was repurposed as a form of theatrical knowledge in the narrow sense. It provided the names and classifications and rules of development for dialects that could on a basic level be utilized in front of an audience.

Assuming the previous rendition of the Prākṛtaprakāśa served individuals who tried to make gāthās like those in the Sattasaī, its later adaptation served individuals who looked to form nāṭakas like Śūdraka and Kālidāsa. Rājaśekhara is a genuine illustration of this shift, His plays are the only ones he wrote in Prakrit, and this language is pretty much the same as what the Praktika says about it. This restricted sense permits us to comprehend how Paiśācī came to be perceived as one of a few dialects of the theater.

Paiśācī is in contrast to Śaurasenī and Māgadhī, was scarcely at any point utilized in theater. There are only a few actual examples, and all of them are from the 13th century, Hemacandra’s synthesis has been concentrated on the task of Paiśācī to Turkish or Muslim characters in these plays. This forces us to consider the connection between Prakrit grammar and the theater from a broader perspective: As the multilingual logic of dysyaksvya grew in importance among Sanskrit intellectuals, Prakrit grammar began to reflect this.

This didn’t imply that Prakrit sentence structure depicted just the dialects of the stage, or even every one of the dialects of the stage; This indicated that the classics of Prakrit literature were extended into the multilingual genres of plays, stories, and songs by Prakrit grammar. Under these conditions, Paiśācī turned into an object of syntactic investigation, something that could be picked, delivered, and controlled, and something that could act as a wellspring of scholarly magnificence essentially, a fully developed language.

Rudrata’ s model of “the six languages” was used in Hemacandra’s Siddhahemacandra (written between 1089 and 1202). The initial seven books of the Siddhahemacandra give a syntax of Sanskrit, the eighth book covers Prakrit, Śaurasenī, Māgadhī, Paiśācī and Apabhraṃśa .

Hemacandra caused a great deal of miscommunication for Paiśācī. One model is his distortion of pseudo-Vararuci’s standard on ‘Paiśācī sound change’, the devoicing of intervocalic stops, With ayujor, “consonants that are not combined with other consonants,” pseudo-Vararuci restricted the scope of this rule; In his commentary, Hemacandra provides a lengthy list of invented examples to support his invented rule, interpreting this word as “excluding forms of the verbal root yuj.” Therefore, Bhamaha’s commentary on pseudo-Vararuci states that vaggho takes the place of vyaghrah in Sanskrit, Vakkho, according to Hemacandra, has taken its place.

In his sources, Hemacandra dealt with the various versions of the ” Paiśācī sound change” by grouping them into what scholars have since considered distinct dialects. Accordingly the Paiśācī portrayed by Nami sadhu, and consonant with the concentrate in the Kuvalayamālā, falls under ‘Paiśācī’ , while the Paiśācī depicted by pseudo-Vararuci (and, where comprehensible, by Kramadīśvara) falls under ‘Cūlikāpaiśācika’. Scholars have pondered this latter designation for a long time. Some scholars, influenced by George Grierson’s “ethnographic” approach, assumed that it referred to a specific group of people who spoke this language.

It should be obvious by now, however, that Paiśācī was never specifically associated with any group of human speakers, unless by mistake, prior to Hemacandra at least. Master interpreted culika as meaning “hill” and loosely translated the term as jangli bat. A much more convincing explanation of Hemacandra’s Culikapaisacika becomes available if we recall the double movement in which Paisaci enters into Prakrit grammar at the same time that Prakrit grammar reorients itself toward the theater: Hemacandra thought that this type of Paisaci was used in a culika (a Cūlikāpaiśācika is a tadarthya-caturthatpurusa-samasa).

Even though the culika isn’t mentioned in the New Testament, it starts to become part of the standard theater vocabulary in Dhananjaya’s Dasarupaka in the tenth century. It is described by Dhanajaya as “the indication of an event by people who are hidden behind the screen” in that location. Later authors frequently add that bards (sutas or magadhas) recite the culika . It is generally referenced regarding different sorts of plot-synopses (for instance, mukhāṅka, garbhāṅka, aṅkāvatāra), although the qualification between them is dubious and was dismissed by Abhinavagupta. The fact that it refers to an event or circumstance that is not currently represented on the stage seems to be what defines the culik for Sagaranandin.

Hemacandra probably thought that the examples of “Culikpaicika” that he quotes were sung by bards off-stage. Although its language falls somewhere between Bhoja’s Paisaci and Culikapaicka, as Hemacandra himself defines it, the first is identical to the “pure Paisaci” verse that is cited in the Sarasvatkahbharana (panamata…) and, possibly, ultimately from the brhatkatha. Another verse in praise of shiva is found which is in the relatively uncommon giti or udgatha meter.
All of Hemacandra’s quotations of “plain” Paisaci are in prose, while both of Culikpaicika’ s quotations are in verse. Hemacandra had a significant impact on later history, literary theory, and Prakrit grammar.

Hemacandra confirmed that Paisaci had previously been included in the sadbhasas, which defined the boundaries of literary discourse furthermore, his sentence structure served both as a lengthy contention for Paiśācī’s status as a language and as a bunch of guidelines for how to deliver it. Paisaci was now perceived as being inside of cosmopolitan culture rather than outside of it. As a consequence of this, initiatives that sought to fully represent this sector occasionally included Paisaci in its new position as the of global culture.

Hemacandra’s own Kumaraplacarita is the first example of such a project. It is a poem about the deeds of his patron that he wrote to illustrate and accompany his grammar, Hemacandra’s rules for Paisaci and Culikapaicika. The Siddhahemacandra and the Kumaraplacarita set the stage for the multilingual Stotra, a new genre. Stotra authors had long been intrigued by language’s capabilities one model is the bhāṣāśleṣa stanza referred to by Bhoja (Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa that at the same time lauds Visnu (in Sanskrit) and Śiva (in Paiśācī).

The “pure” varieties are named after regions, and Kaikeya Paisaci is the most significant and most comparable to other grammarians’ descriptions. These names were given by previous researchers to the places where Paisaci was spoken. Grierson supported his theory that the language came from the northwestern india ( Kashmir ) by linking it to the Kekaya people.

The most popular variants are the two delivered in Kashmir in the 11th century The Bhatkathmanjari of Kesmendra (first half of the century) and the Kathsaritsgara of Somadeva (1063–82) These two works were put together not with respect to the Bṛhatkathā itself but rather on a Kashmiri .
Bṛhatkathā has an extremely exceptional position throughout the entire existence of writing, and without a doubt of textuality, in South Asia.

The Bṛhatkathā is remarkable, as a matter of some importance, in that it is broadly revealed The Bṛhatkathā is novel in a subsequent regard, which is firmly connected with the first ,It always appears to be translated. I contend that the Brhatkath’s connection to translation, both in its “actual” textual history and in the collective memory of Indian literary culture, is not accidental; rather, it is ingrained in the Brhatkatha.

There are a few notable shiva characteristics in the Brhatkatha tradition in the Kashmiri adaptations, the actual story started from Śhiva
The ‘account of the story’ may have been contrived to accommodate the more established custom that the Bṛhatkathā was made in bhūtabhāṣā with the fresher comprehension of bhūtabhāṣā as Paiśācī, and prepended to the tale of Udayana an exhibit of the hereditary connection between these dialects and Paiśācī as portrayed by premodern grammarians. Because it allowed Grierson to localize Paisaci in both space and time, this demonstration was significant to him.

Who were the Paisaci ? Grierson acknowledged that the word ” Paisaci ” most commonly refers to a mythological being known as a “ghoul,” but he immediately suggested that the word actually meant “human beings obnoxious to the authors of the passages in which their names occur.” Similar to Rasasas and Asuras, Grierson argued that the “Aryan” authors of Sanskrit texts represented the Paisaci as demonic ghouls: Today, we might refer to this as an “othering strategy.” Then, to back up his claim that ” Paisaci ” was a “generic, opprobrious, nickname for the tribes of North-Western India and the neighboring mountains,” Grierson cited more than a dozen passages from the Mahabharata.

Grierson misconstrued a couple of sections in the Prakrit grammarians with respect to Paiśācī, yet his bigger contention has demonstrated very influential. Grierson embraced his investigation of Paiśācī while he was managing the huge Etymological Review of India, and there is a nearby association between the tasks. His philological work gave the languages he documented for the Survey and the data from the Survey a historical say that the Prakrit grammarians were read by him as if they were skeptical responses to the Survey. An “ethnographic” approach to Paisaci can be seen in his work. Its working supposition that was that ‘Paiśācī’ was a genuine language, specifically, the verbally expressed vernacular of the ‘Piśāca’ individuals; its objectives were to distinguish who these ‘Piśāca’ individuals were and where they resided; its techniques were the recreation of a ‘verifiable’ Paiśācī language and its genealogical linkage with at least one ‘current’ dialects.

This approach is called “ethnographic” because its ultimate targets are people, not literary traditions or even languages: distinct communities with their own distinct language, history, and customs. The vernacular, also known as the “mother language,” is crucial for this reason: Language is what defines a people, and it is passed down through family groups from generation to generation; it stands out from the ‘learned’ language that has practically no ethnographic worth unequivocally on the grounds that it is advanced by various networks. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that Grierson needed to consider Paisaci to be a “vernacular” in order to connect it to the so-called Paisaci communities in northwestern India known as Kashmir .

The Kashmiri Pishachi language’s literary splendor. This is a very important piece of information because it demonstrates the ancient Tribe of Kashmir’s Kashmiri Hindu Aboriginal identity. The language in question also defines the social, cultural, and ritual practices of Kashmiri Hindus. Extraordinary personality

Paisachi language Symptoms :
Prakrit grammarians like Hemchandra etc. have described its following characteristics:
Pronunciation of ज्ञ in place of ज्ञ, न्य and न्य, like Sarvajna = सव्वन्न्यो, Abhimanyu = अभिमन्न्य
Na in place of न, like Gunen = Gunen;
T in place of both T and D like Parvati = Pavvati, Damodaro = Tamotaro;
ल in place of ल; Like सलिलं = सालिळ;
श्, ष्, स — in place of these three, s, like Shashi = Sasi, Vishmo = Vismo, Prashna = Pasamsa;
In place of ट, substitute ट, like Kutumbakam = Kutumbakam;
Toon replaces the past tense suffix ktwa, like Gatwa = Gantoon.
Apart from these, the tendency of this Prakrit to distinguish itself from other medieval Prakrits like Shauraseni etc. is that in it the short letters like ख, ग, च, झ etc. are not lost and नख, घध, धु, भ are there in place of these Mahapaana letters . Thus, the varna system in Paisachi is closer to Sanskrit than other Prakrits.

A strain of Paisachi Prakrit is “Chulika Paisachi”, in which in addition to the above mentioned tendencies of Paisachi, the following two special characteristics are found. Firstly, here, in place of the sound letters like घ, घ, ड, ध etc., the order of non-sound letters ख, ख etc. is found respectively, like Gandhaar = Kandahar, Ganga = Kanka, Bhedah = Mekho, Raja = Racha, Nirjharah = Nichharo, Madhuram = Mathuram, Balakah = parents, Bhagwati = speech. In place of the second letter, substitute l, like Gori = Goli, Charan = Chalan, Ruddam = Ludd.

When compared with other Prakrits, the tendencies of Paisachi’s Gya in place of Gya and ङ् in place of ङ्ञ and ल are similar to those of Pali . The tendency of ‘lu’ in place of ‘sa’ is a characteristic symptom of Magadhi Prakriti. In place of the three positive cases, the inflection of the nominative singular o connects Paisachi with Shauraseni(CNI) Current News of India

For feed Back and suggestions kindly reach out to satish M at

Let us Share

Leave a Comment