LONG VIEW: The Time For A Global Plural Alliance

International norms and the international rule based order are based on the universalist ideology of a liberal western civilisation and its Westphalian State history, with little accommodation let alone coexistence of alternative ideological or philosophical positions or dynamics. This has caused tensions but more importantly a situation where the tools for mediation and resolution of conflicts, or of arbitration and institutionalisation of diversity are imperfect in international institutions such as the United Nations. It restricts all efforts to be compliant within options consistent with the paradigm of an interpretation of liberalism with no scope to negotiate as equals or with respect for alternatives.

The current ideology in international institutions, international law and international relations assumes axiomatic universal paradigm status.  This means all alternatives are considered in need of correction, reform or improvement relative to the ideal liberal ideological values, norms and principles. This approach permeates all of the institutions of United Nations as the body has institutionalised liberalism within all its organs and treaties.

The consequences of this is two-fold. It militates against nature’s propensity towards diversity and plurality. Secondly it restricts the flexibility of the first article of the United Nations Charter as it cages the scope of activity within a paradigm that assumes hegemony and preference as well as the reference against which possibilities for peace are explored.

The first contradiction is indeed axiomatic. Nature is not universalist. Gravity may be one of the most fundamental force but there are also anti-gravity forces. There is matter but also dark matter and anti-matter. There is the physical universe with its laws but there are also black holes. The range of vegetation, species and life forms is phenomenon. Life needs oxygen but there are others who thrive on its lack. Most species need light, but there are others that are destroyed by light. Most species need warmth but there are others that thrive in sub-zero temperatures. The list is endless. The number of species is almost endless. Some animal species, such as elephants are highly social, matriarchal and collectively look after their young. Others like lions are highly patriarchal and kill the young offspring of male lions they have ousted from the family. Some like wild dogs work in packs and have a hierarchical system, while others like bears are highly individualist and territorial about their hunting ground. Even within species there are variants. Some apes and monkeys have rigid hierarchical cultures that rook no challenge while other like the bonobos have a very cooperative culture. Nature is certainly not universalist. The UN and international institutions are universalist.

Similarly human society and its civilisations have evolved over many centuries and thousands of years in different ways. Some have a strong sense of individual sovereignty while others have complex systems of filial responsibilities or family orientated cultures with duties and obligations. Legal systems also vary among civilisations as do concepts of rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities. Some cultures are hierarchical and both comfortable and strong with such systems while others have high levels of consensus among members before decisions are made. Like nature, human society is not governed by a single set of value systems, legal instruments or political orders. There are some extraordinary and somewhat unrealistic assumptions in some of the treaties of the UN that all of human kind seeks the same set of freedoms, values, rights and life ambitions. This is a universalist assumption that crushes diversity of perspectives and contradicts nature’s propelling tendency towards diversity and pluralism.

Universalism is the presumption that a group of individuals or communities can identify what is fundamental to all human beings and how that can be achieved. While the struggle to live and have dignity is natural to all life, the route to realising this is not necessarily universally through a regime of rights. In some species and in some cultures of human beings, life is sustained and nurtured through a complex set of responsibilities. An unnatural death, or even death by disease, is seen as failure or abrogation of duties and responsibilities of the whole family, relatives and even village community. Life is not protected just by a regime of rights against an aggressor or intruder or negligent State but by a collective sense of commitment to sustaining life.

The United Nations charter starts with the essential mission for which it was established, that is ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’.  In Article 1 it states that its purposes are ‘ to maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective collective measures for the protection and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

26 nations sign the ‘Declaration by United Nations’

If the foremost primary mission of the United Nations was and remains to maintain international peace and to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, then it would be necessary for it to remove or at least diffuse one of the most recurring triggers of wars in history, particularly in the history of the western sphere and middle east. This is the tensions that arise when one dominant culture tries to impose a hegemonic order upon others based on its idea of the perfect set of values and governance. Through history this fuse has been ignited by religions that assume their truths are universal and divine while others are false. During colonialism wars were supported by the notion that the dominant force was ‘civilising the barbarians’ or ‘civilising those who were in need of a greater civilisation’. Even slavery was justified by ideological propping with one community assuming itself to be ‘civilised’ while others to be ‘uncivilised barbarians worthy of being treated as labour in captivity’. The World Wars were fought with competing secular ideological hegemonies being a major frame in the war. Nationalism and claims of threats to nations was a significant factor although territorial designs and access to resources were just as important.

Nevertheless the UN charter introduces an ideological preference in the next sentence that it assumes is self evidently universal, universally desired by all people and universally applicable across the world. It states in the preamble that’ to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights … in the equal rights of men and women…. The charter in Article 1.3 states‘… in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion’. The Charter then commits to a practical route for itself to attain these by stating in Article 1.4 ‘To be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends’.

Having established the ideology that it feels will bring permanent peace or remove the scourge of war, it embarks on ‘harmonising’ the actions of nations in the attainment of these goals.

Given that many wars in history have been over ideological competition and campaigns or ‘crusades’ as they were called, for ideological hegemony, it is contentious whether the United Nation’s mission to end wars would be achieved by committing to harmonising the actions of nations to the preferred ideology. Harmonising the actions of nations is controversial. It means that ‘nations’ and civilisations would have to sacrifice their distinctive cultural or philosophical and political worldview and adopt the one that the UN promotes. This also means that the power or dominance or even ownership of the ideological hegemony to which all nations have to move towards is in the hands of those countries or civilisations whose worldview and ideological paradigm the United Nations has adopted as a universal preference and standard. It is not difficult to see that this immediately negates the intention of the mission to end wars, since wars in history have largely been fought for ideological hegemony, although as well as resources.

The inevitable happened almost instantly when the UN was instituted. There emerged a block of countries called the ‘west’ that claimed democracy, rule of law, human rights and liberalism as ‘civilised governance’, axiomatically universal and that which they were already practicing and that they felt all countries of the world should ‘harmonise’ towards. Resisting this and seen as the opposing worldview was communism as adopted by the Soviet Union. This was ascribed as authoritarian and anti-democratic, thus either in violation of the principles of the United Nations or in need of reforms to be consistent with the United Nations. In this group were placed, along with the Soviet, the People’s Republic of China and any other countries that did not have western forms of democracy. This group was and still is usually termed ‘dictatorships’ or autocracies. Thus a clear division of opposing ideologies emerged immediately after the formation of the UN and a fertile ground for wars was created by the United Nations itself by tying itself to one ideological mission. The UN had unwittingly created and instituted the conditions that had led to many wars in history. Inevitably there followed a long period of what was called the ‘Cold War’ but which led to many real and bloody wars through proxy and remote management. The two superpowers that emerged from World War II, decided to avoid a direct confrontation with each other as both had nuclear weapons. A direct conflict would lead to the third World War and almost mutual decimation.

The preference to create a hegemonic ideology and persuade nations or force them to ‘harmonise’ their actions to this, is a paradox that the United Nations has failed to appreciate in context of its founding mission. It was and remains the fertiliser for conflict and war. Ideologies usually consider that if the entire world embraces the same ideology, there would be permanent or eternal peace in the world and all wars of differences would come to an end. This is contrary to nature as nature nurtures diversity and pluralism. Any effort to push against nature and create an artificial or human imagined set of universal rules inevitably fail because neither human beings nor human society accept uniformity or universalism. It leads to more wars as the post-war period has shown.

What the United Nations needs to do is to revisit its charter and ask itself whether it sees its purpose as an institution that will work to end wars by mediating among, negotiating between and creating the circumstances for diametrically opposite and different political ideologies to coexist or does it consider its purpose to establish permanent peace by persuading the entire world and its nations to commit to a ‘universal’ set of values, principles, political ideology and standards that one of dominant civilisations that emerged from colonialism thinks is the ultimate ideal universal.

If the United Nations sees its purpose to ‘save succeeding nations from the scourge of war’, then it has to learn from history and avoid promoting both ideological hegemony and ideological universalism. It needs to restate its mission to encourage coexistence of diverse political ideologies and promote pluralism as well as enact instruments and create the tools to make that possible. Mediation needs to be between diverse ideologies without any side feeling they are being judged against one and required to conform to a particular universalist ideology. Dignity and respect of the human being can be achieved through all different ideologies and almost all ideologies claim their purpose to respect the dignity and security of all human beings.

Efforts have been made at the United Nations to establish a ‘dialogue between civilisations’. However this seems to have been marginalised. Moreover the influence of this exercise is almost irrelevant as the body corpus of UN treaties and orientation is to promote one civilisation. A ‘dialogue’ will also only attempt to harmonise others towards this one universalist ideology.

It is also not fair to assume that the west is behind all this or that it is enforcing the liberalism adopted by the UN to impose its hegemony. The charter and the subsequent treaties were drafted and agreed by the State members present. Among them were countries that did not have liberal form of democracies. Whether they lacked arguments against the deep convictions of the west that liberalism was the future, or they were implying that they too would ‘harmonise’ towards the ideals of liberalism, even democracy. There was little if any critique of the ideological hegemony being created and against which every nation, civilisation and ideology was to be judged from henceforth. The world handed hegemony to the west and then accused it of exploiting it.

The impact of this universalist approach based on western liberalism has been that when countries that practice liberalism deviate from it, it is considered as a temporary aberration. But the countries who do not have liberalism as their core political philosophy, are intentionally or unwittingly considered by the UN system as ‘fundamentally flawed’ in need of reform, even if this statement is not publicly stated. There is thus a permanent state of countries who meet UN standards and those that are ‘defective’ or in need of reform. The status of this category of countries is one of defensive. Whatever confidence they assert in international institutions such as UN, crashes against the liberalist wall of the charters, the treaties and the declarations. These countries are therefore in a de facto status of second class and not really in ownership of the agenda. They throw their weight by virtue of their size, power and finance, but ideologically they are always followers.

The United Nations needs reforming itself and needs to adopt pluralism rather than one form of liberalism as its driving conceptual foundation. This will ensure diversity is respected equally and with dignity thus removing one of the recurring causes of wars, the desire for ideological hegemony.

To start a serious debate, research and move towards a United Nations that is genuinely plural without institutionalising hegemony, there is a need for a movement and alliance for pluralism. Countries and civilisations that feel they are being ‘harmonised’ towards one universal ideology that grants control of the debate to one civilisation, could form a Global Alliance for pluralism or the Pluralist Alliance. This alliance could be the start of a genuinely pluralist world and human society moving away from wars, or the traditional notion of war to end all wars, and moving towards coexistence of differences and diversity of world views. Some of the treaties may need to be revisited and the wordings changed so almost all civilisations could coexist, be respected and not made to feel lacking perfection.

During the Cold War, India led the Non-Aligned Movement to duck the pressure to side with one or the other. Some 75 other countries, now increased to 120, joined this group and escaped inordinate pressures to some extent. But in current date the world is multipolar. It is no longer binary, divided in two blocs with a need for non-aligned to stay independent. In fact India itself is now a power bloc.

The current period offers an opportunity to realise this and institute pluralism, particularly at the United Nations, as the world is in a state of multipolar power blocks. The distribution of power and wealth is not binary but genuinely plural with different power blocks having distinct cultures and civilisations too. The time to start and form a serious debate about pluralism and end hegemony is now if ever. It could start with the BRICS countries forming a Global Alliance for Pluralism at the United Nations.

BRICS Sherpas Thrash Out Meetings, Plan For 2022

BRICS Sherpas held their second meeting in a virtual format on April 12-13 and discussed BRICS meetings and activities planned for the year 2022, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said on Wednesday.

In the meeting, Secretary (ER) of MEA, Dammu Ravi led India’s delegation.

“Secretary (ER) Dammu Ravi led India’s delegation at the 2nd BRICS Sherpas’ Meeting on April 12-13 in virtual format. Discussions were held on various BRICS meetings and activities planned during the course of the year 2022,” MEA said in a tweet.

Meanwhile, on April 8, the Chinese Minister of Finance Liu Kun at the First BRICS Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting said that the country seeks to continue promoting fiscal and financial cooperation among BRICS countries.

China will take steps such as information sharing and conducting experience exchanges in infrastructure investment to deepen fiscal and financial cooperation between BRICS countries, Liu said during the meeting that was held virtually, reported Xinhua.

“In recent years, BRICS countries have maintained strong cooperation momentum and made important contributions to optimizing global economic governance and boosting the resumption and high-quality development of the global economy,” Liu further said.

The meeting was co-chaired by Liu and China’s central bank governor Yi Gang and saw the participation of finance ministers and central bank governors from other BRICS countries.

Earlier in March, media reports said that the surprise visit of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to India was to make out a strong case for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s presence at the upcoming BRICS summit in China.

China is scheduled to host the BRICS summit in Xiamen in June this year.

BRICS is a multilateral forum consisting of five major emerging economies of the world, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. (ANI)

Digvijay On Khargone: BJP Weaponizes Communal Rift

Senior Congress leader and former Madya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijaya Singh on Wednesday blamed the Bharatiya Janata Party-led state government for the Khargone violence saying that communal tension is the biggest weapon of the party.

Addressing the media, Singh questioned the ruling party and said, “Pandit Dwarka Pd Mishra used to tell me riots cannot take place as long as the Chief Minister does not want it. I became CM after the Babri Masjid demolition. Why did no riots break out until 2003? Because I arrested those who tried to incite communal tensions.”

Calling the incident a failure of administration, the former CM said, “What is happening today is a failure of the administration. Communal tension is the biggest weapon of the BJP government. They make political use of it to create divides between Hindus and Muslims.”

“It should be investigated where the stones came from? Who pelted it? Why was the route changed? Stone pelting at five places at the same time should all be investigated,” Singh further said.

The Congress leader also alleged that BJP leader Kapil Mishra was present in Khargone’s Bhikangaon, and had given a provocative speech.

“I talked about religious harmony all my life. I had made rules during my tenure as the Chief Minister. The incidents of religious frenzy in the country on Ram Navami are sponsored,” he said while adding that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is silent on the issue.

Notably, Madhya Pradesh Police on Tuesday registered an FIR against Digvijaya Singh for allegedly conspiring to instigate communal violence by posting misleading tweets.

The FIR was filed based on the complaint of one Prakash Mande, a resident of Bhopal. The case was registered under sections 153A, 295A, 465, 505 (2) of IPC. Mande complained that Singh posted a fabricated photo that might instigate communal violence.

After the violence in Raisen and Khargone in Madhya Pradesh, the Shivraj Singh Chouhan government has taken strict action against the people involved in the violence and the local district administration got into action mode.

As many as four houses and three shops near Mohan Talkies, 12 houses and 10 shops in Khaskhas Badi area, three shops in Aurangpura area and 12 shops in Talaab Chowk were demolished. Approximately 16 illegal sites were demolished near Ganesh Temple in Khargone.

The incident took place on Sunday when several people, including police personnel, were injured when groups of people pelted stones at each other during a Ram Navami procession. The stone-pelting started at the very beginning of the procession leaving around four people injured including a police inspector, police said.

After the miscreants set four houses on fire, the administration imposed a curfew in Talab Chowk, Gaushala Marg, and Motipura areas. (ANI)

Enforced Disappearances Continue Unabated In Pakistan

Cases of disappearances, especially from ethnic minority areas continue unabated in Pakistan with a commission recording a total of 158 missing persons for the year 2022.

The Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances has received 76 new complaints of missing persons in March, according to the monthly report released by the commission, Friday Times reported.

The Commission statistics also indicate that a total of 23 cases were deleted due to not being deemed to be cases of enforced disappearance.

As per the data of cases from March 2011, when the commission was established, up till March 2022, the commission has received 8,463 complaints related to enforced disappearances, out of which it has disposed of 6,275 cases, while the whereabouts of 2,266 persons could not be ascertained during the course of inquiry.

The commission took up the case of Muhammad Nabi Marri & Muhammad Khan Marri, residents of Quetta, At the hearing held in this case at Quetta, SP Quaid Abad Quetta informed the commission that incidents of alleged enforced disappearance occurred on 11 April 2012, while dead bodies of both were found in the Maidan of Killa Firozabad, Sariab Road, Quetta last year, the report said.

The commission also took up the case of Sikandar Khan son of Pir Bakhsh, a resident of Quetta, and he appeared before the commission. His statement was recorded on oath, in which he stated that he was abducted in front of his house, blindfolded by three or four persons, who came in a car, and kept him at some unknown place in a small room – from where he was set free at Quetta Bazaar after 45 days.

Out of a total of 940 persons confined in different internment centers in the country, 91 belong to Punjab, 791 are from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, 41 are from Sindh, 21 are residents of the federal capital Islamabad, two are from Baluchistan, three are from Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), and one person belongs to Gilgit-Baltistan, the report further said.

Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Athar Minallah last week equated enforced disappearances with treason. The remark came during the hearing of missing journalist Mudassar Naaru’s case at the IHC. Naru, a journalist from Lahore, went missing in August 2018, the report said.

“Can anyone be disappeared without their [federal and provincial governments’] will? No,” the judge declared. “People going missing are the incompetence of the State. The Executive is responsible if the state agencies are not in control. Why don’t we declare the executive responsible for it?”

Enforced disappearances are used as a tool by Pakistani authorities to terrorize people who question the all-powerful army establishment of the country, or seek individual or social rights. Cases of enforced disappearances have been majorly recorded in the Balochistan and the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa provinces of the country which host active separatist movements.

A recent report unveiled by the US revealed that over 8000 people were missing in the country during 2021 including 1,200 missing in Sindh province in the last six months. (ANI)

Shehnaaz Drops Pearls Of Fashion Wisdom

After acing adorable salwar-kameez looks during her visit to Punjab, Shehnaaz Gill is now turning heads with her sizzling new avatar.

Taking to her Instagram handle, the ‘Honsla Rakh’ actor shared a string of pictures, in which she can be seen wearing a white sweater top with an embellished mini skirt.

Shehnaaz Gill styled her hair with loose waves and completed the outfit with champagne-gold coloured heels. She added drama to her look with smokey eyes and dewy makeup.

In the caption, she wrote, “Style is not a display of wealth but an expression of imagination and mood.”

Fans flooded the post with likes and love-filled comments.

“Wow is an understatement! God bless your Shehnaaz,” a social media user wrote.

“Queen of all hearts,” another added.

On the work front, Shehnaaz was recently seen in Shilpa Shetty’s fitness-based show ‘Shape of You’. (ANI)

CBI Files Case Against Private firm For Cheating Banks

After receiving a complaint from IDBI Bank Ltd, Colaba, Mumbai, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case against a private company, informed the officials on Wednesday.

The case has been registered against the organisation’s manufacturing units at Dewas, (Madhya Pradesh); Jhagadia Industrial Estate, Bharuch (Gujarat) and a registered office in Mumbai and 14 others including its Promoters/Directors and unknown public servants and private persons.
“It has been further alleged that the said private company was engaged in the business of manufacturing high-value fine cotton fabrics and home textiles. It was further alleged that the said company and its Promoters/Directors in conspiracy with others committed fraud by availing various credit/ loan facilities from a consortium of banks led by IDBI Bank Ltd. and misusing/ diverting the bank funds during the period 2012 to 2018, and thereby causing loss of Rs. 1,245.15 Crores (approx) to the banks,” informed the officials in an official statement.

The complaint was filed by the IDBI Bank Ltd. and also on behalf of four other member banks of the consortium, namely, Central Bank of India, The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, Punjab National Bank and Indian Bank.

Searches were conducted at 13 locations including in Maharashtra, Gujarat, and West Bengal at the premises of the accused which led to the recovery of incriminating documents.

Further investigations are underway. (ANI)

Kareena, Karisma Make A Stylish Entry At Ranbir-Alia’s Ceremonies

Who does not want to look their best when there is an important wedding in the family? Bollywood divas Kareena Kapoor Khan and Karisma Kapoor have undoubtedly aced their fashion game on day one of Ranbir Kapoor-Alia Bhatt’s wedding festivities.

The sisters, on Wednesday afternoon, were spotted leaving for Ranbir’s residence Vastu, where the pre-wedding rituals are being held.
For the special occasion, Karisma and Kareena opted for traditional outfits. Kareena chose to wear an ivory dream lehenga. On the other hand, Karisma was seen dressed in a yellow suit. Ranbir’s cousin Armaan Jain was also papped while he was leaving for the venue.

If reports are to be believed, the mehendi function of Ranbir and Alia is currently taking place at the former’s Vastu residence. (ANI)

K’taka: Eshwarappa Rules Out Resigning

Karnataka Minister KS Eshwarappa on Wednesday ruled out resigning from the cabinet amid the opposition’s demand for his resignation and arrest over a case related to the death of a contractor.

“There is no question of me resigning from the post of Minister because of any reason. I have informed CM Bommai and the party president that there is no question of me resigning as a minister,” said KS Eshwarappa, Karnataka Minister for Rural Development and Panchayat Raj.
Demanding an investigation into the matter, Eshwarappa termed the incident a “conspiracy”.

“The conspiracy behind the death should be probed. Did he die on his own or for some other reason must be investigated,” Eshwarappa said.

Contractor Santosh Patil, who died by suicide, has purportedly left a WhatsApp message alleging corruption by Eshwarappa.

The Minister defended himself by saying that “no death note was found near the body” and questioned the legality of considering a WhatsApp message.

Denying any relation to the contractor, Minister added, “Officially no work order has been issued to him.”

“I have not seen his (Santosh Patil) face but as you (reporters) are saying that he often travelled to Delhi. It should be probed who booked his flight tickets and why,”

As opposition Congress launched a scathing attack on the Minister over the alleged death by suicide, Eshwarappa said “I want to ask the Congress, did you, when in power, release payment without a work order.”

“Congress leaders Siddaramaiah and DK Shivakumar know nothing. Whatsaap message cannot be taken as a death note,” said Eshwarappa.

The contractor had earlier alleged that Eshwarappa demanded commission for the release of funds for the civil works undertaken by him at Hindalga village in Belagavi district ahead of a festival.

The 37-year-old contractor allegedly committed suicide in a lodge in Udupi on the intervening night of Monday and Tuesday by consuming some poisonous substance, according to police.

The brother of the deceased contractor Santosh Patil on Wednesday demanded the arrest of KS Eshwarappa and his close aides Ramesh and Basawaraj.

Meanwhile, the Karnataka Congress delegation led by state party chief DK Shivakumar, and former chief minister Siddaramaiah met Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot demanding the expulsion of Eshwarappa from the state cabinet as well as his arrest over the contractor’s death.

“FIR lodged against KS Eshwarappa. He and the other accused should be immediately arrested; a case must be filed under the corruption act… In his text message, (deceased contractor) Santosh Patil clearly blamed Eshwarappa for his death. The Minister and his PAs demanded 40 per cent commission. He wrote to PM Modi and met BL Santhosh and others. He categorically mentioned corruption. We demand that the case must be filed under the corruption act,” he said.

Referring to the purported social media message, the Congress leader said “In his WhatsApp message, he clearly said that Eshwarappa is responsible for his death. So Eshwarappa must be arrested.” (ANI)

Ranbir-Alia To Tie The Knot On Baisakhi

The wait is finally over! Lovebirds Ranbir Kapoor and Alia Bhatt will tie the knot on the occasion of Baisakhi on Thursday.

The details about the wedding date have been confirmed by Ranbir’s sister Riddhima Kapoor Sahni and mother Neetu Kapoor while talking to the media after attending the couple’s mehendi ceremony.

“The wedding is tomorrow (Thursday) at Vastu (Ranbir’s Bandra residence),” Riddhima and Neetu, with a big smile on their faces, informed.

The mother-daughter duo also praised Alia, saying she is the “best.”

“Bhaut cute and gorgeous hai Alia (She is extremely cute and gorgeous),” Riddhima added.

Prior to the mehendi ceremony, a pooja was organised at Ranbir’s residence in memory of his late father Rishi Kapoor, who passed away on April 30, 2022, after battling cancer.

Speaking of Ranbir and Alia’s relationship, the two met on the sets of ‘Brahmastra’ five years ago and fell in love with each other while working together. (ANI)

Jeweller Sends Gold-Plated Bouquet For Ranbir-Alia

Not only wishes but gifts have also been pouring in for Ranbir Kapoor and Alia Bhatt.

A day before their wedding, a jeweller on Wednesday sent a gold-plated bouquet to the couple.
A video has been doing the rounds on the internet in which two men are seen arriving with the bouquet for the love birds.

When asked about the gift, the men claimed that it was a gold bouquet coated with gold foil.

Reportedly, the special gift was sent by a jeweller in Surat.