Christer Johansson's rights

Christer Johansson has less rights than thieves, rapists and murderers

Domenic and Dad, a close, loving relationship.

On Monday, November 22, 2010, a distraught Christer Johansson left a social services state supervised visit, taking his only child, Domenic, with him. Johansson did not have permission to take his son home, but did so in response to 18 months of pleas by Domenic to be allowed to go home to the family he loves and misses. After calling authorities on Wednesday, November 24th to turn himself in, Johansson now sits in a Visby, Sweden jail cell. All of the citizens of the Swedish island of Gotland have been breathing a sigh of relief ever since Johasson's incarceration. And rightly so! The lives of Gotland's citizens are much safer now that this loving, caring, gentle and sensitive father and husband is safely locked behind bars.  

Today, December 20, 2010, Christer Johansson was brought before a Swedish judge to face trial for his crimes against Sweden. While we do not yet know the outcome of this "trial" what we do know in leading up to today's legal circus is that Christer Johansson has less rights than Swedish thieves, rapists and murderers. 

Since November 24th, the behind-the-scenes legal battle has focused on securing the best possible defense for Johansson, who has requested representation by Trygve Emstedt, Gävle, a lawyer with 30 years experience specializing in human rights. Incorporated into Sweden's constitution in January 1995, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), under Article 6, guarantees every Swedish citizen the right to choose their own representative and the right to a fair trial as provided within the foundation of a legally secure process.

Father and son, a strong, loving bond.

In direct defiance of Swedish and European Union laws, Gotland City Courts have refused Johansson's guaranteed rights by rejecting his appeal for of a defense by Emstedt and has instead continues to maintain Shantu Brahmbhatt as his public defender.  Apparently, everyone in Sweden enjoys the guarantee of ECHR Article 6 except Christer Johansson. 

There two very good reasons why Johansson has rejected Brahmbhatt as his counsel. First, having only recently been accepted to the bar in June 2010, Brahmbhatt has only negligible and even questionable experience before the court. Naturally, Johnasson desires, and is guaranteed, to exercise his right to obtain the best defense available while he defends his right to liberty. 

Secondly, Johansson is only too aware of Brahmbhatt's inept legal counsel, for it is Brahmbhatt who was appointed by Gotland City Courts to defend Annie Johansson's rights as Domenic's mother. All who have been following the Johansson case since 2009 realize Brahmbhatt, as Annie Johansson's defender, has done little more than appear before Gotland's courts and has simply followed the edicts of Gotland Social Services. To date, Brahmabhatt has never forged an independent defense of Annie Johansson's rights, therefore it is not to be expected that she would forge an independent defense of Christer Johansson before the Gotland bench today. Earlier this year, Annie Johansson appealed to the courts to have Brahmabhatt removed as her public defender. Her appeal was met with a thumbing by the Swedish courts, as well.

In addition to fact that Article 6 of the ECHR, ratified in Sweden's constitution, guarantees Christer Johansson the choice of legal representation, the aforementioned reasons should have been enough for Gotland City Courts to grant Johansson new legal counsel. However, as we've witnessed since June 25, 2009, when armed police swarmed an India bound jet just before it taxied the runway at Sweden's Stockholm-Arlanda Airport removing then 7 year-old Domenic without a warrant and without ever charging Christer and Annie Johansson with a crime, Sweden's courts, especially those on Gotland Island, seem to operate under their own laws of justice, ignoring the rights of this family under Sweden's constitution and the ECHR.

Below is translated text from a story out of Sweden regarding Christer's trail today 


Dad on trial for kidnapping
I only wanted to see my son. That's how the man in his 40's explained it who was today on trial for illegally having abducted his son placed into foster care.


It was last November, when the man was meant to have had a supervised meeting with his son, that he pulled his son into his car and drove away. For a couple of days he kept his son with him before the police could arrest him.


Today the main proceedings took place at Gotland district court. The prosecution against the man was charged as kidnapping, or possibly illegal deprivation of liberty.


The man explained his actions with having to see his son, but he doesn't feel he's committed any crime.


The court considers it proven that he's committed the acts he's been indicted for, but before a sentence and sanction is delivered, he's to go through a major investigation by forensic psychiatry.


Hence the main proceedings won't end for another four weeks. Until then the man remains in jail.

********************
In another news account from Sweden, we've learned that Domenic gave a video testimony regarding the time he spent with his father and family after Christer took him home for a few days. According to the news account, Domenic told the court that when his father took him, he was scared at first but then he thought it was really great to be with his father and other relatives. He described his time away from state care as an adventure and had nothing negative to say about the experience.

This story can be found here:   
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=94&artikel=4250998

ADF VIDEO: Swedish government's 18-month-long seizure of 9-year-old boy pushing parents to emotional brink

Below is a recently produced and released video by the Alliance Defense Fund regarding the Johansson case.

Update on Christer - 2

Christer Johansson Denied Human Rights Attorney, Again!

While he strives to defend himself for taking Domenic home for an unapproved visit with family late last month, Christer Johansson has yet again been denied representation by an attorney specializing in human rights. Astonishingly, the public defender assigned to Christer's "criminal" case is Shantu Brambhat, the same attorney who has been representing Annie Johansson since 2009 in her fight to retrieve custody of Domenic from Gotland Social Services. 

As you might imagine, Christer hasn't much confidence in Attorney Brambhat's ability to defend his best interests, nor the best interests of his family. Therefore, Christer has requested the representation of Human Rights Attorney Tryggve Emstedt of Gävle, Sweden. Not surprisingly, Gotland's courts just today rejected Christer's request for defense by Emstedt. Hence, Brambhat will be Christer's defender whether she is capable of a worthy defense or not. It appears to us that Gotland desires no outsiders within her "halls of justice." From what we understand, formal charges will be made against Christer on December 20th. We are not sure why his date before a Gotland judge continues to change.

We've also received word that Human Rights Attorney Ruby Harrold-Claesson, who is president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (NCHR) and represents the Johanssons in their appeal against Sweden to the European Courts of Human Rights, has finally been given permission to speak with Christer while he sits behind bars. Harrold-Claesson was removed from the Johansson's Swedish case against Gotland Social Services last spring after Eva Ernstson, the court appointed "representative" for Domenic, complained to the courts about Harrold-Claesson's involvement on the case.  Emstedt is also associated with the NCHR.

For those of you new to the Johansson family's battle with Sweden, go here to learn how it all began.

For those who may not know, Christer is a very talented and avid photographer. His work stands as a testimony to his artistic eye and  sensitivity to beauty. Before Domenic was stolen from Annie and Christer's care, they were cultivating within him a special appreciation for the natural things of this world. You can enjoy some of Christer's photography work by visiting his archive here.

 Below is a photo, snapped by Christer, of Domenic enjoying early spring flowers shortly before he was stolen by social services.

 

Guest Writer: Daniel Hammarberg

The Domenic case is far from unique
By Daniel Hammarberg, human rights activist and author of The Madhouse: A critical study of Swedish society

Since Sweden introduced barnavårdslagen, "the child welfare law," in 1924, the act which enabled the state to take children into custody without their parents' consent, quite a few Swedes have faced relocation into foster care on dubious grounds. As the supply of foster homes wasn't nearly enough to meet the new demands of the grandiose plans for solving societal ills through foster care, the state swiftly established orphanages where sometimes upwards of 30 children were brought up. In the mid 20th century, at the peak of the days of unbridled foster care, no less than one in 30 children at any given time resided in foster care - half of them in actual families, the other half in orphanages. Since then, the proportion of the total population has gone down somewhat, but these dreaded child institutions are still around, now referred to as HVB-hem - treatment homes.


Two opposite developments have taken place; on the one hand, the poverty that afflicted early 20th century Sweden was nearly eliminated during the 1950's and 60's. On the other hand, as the original reasons to take children into state custody were disappearing, social workers created new reasons to seize children. While before, children could be taken due to their parents not being able to afford their sustenance or outright physically abusing them, now questionable psychological theories on the development of children see the light of day, instead. Delusional Freudian beliefs are now used to justify separating a child from his or her family. As the legislation upon which the foster care system was based has progressed, not only is actual harm to the child used to make a case, but now also projections of psychologists on the future development of the child are heavily considered.

While the early incarnations of barnavårdslagen, "the child welfare law," were fairly specific on the grounds upon which to take a child into custody, these later developed into general clauses which in today's LVU law lets the government seize children if "... any other condition in the home" warrants it as per §2, or as far as the conduct of the child goes - "... any other socially destructive behaviour" as per §3. What is considered to meet these conditions is for the social workers as a profession to decide, and the administrative courts that try the cases rarely question the opinions of the social workers.


Any use of naked force and oppressive measures will eventually meet resistance, and in Sweden as a possible counter, we've witnessed the use of Newspeak for what was previously a blatantly controversial use of state authority. The 1924 law didn't mince words when it laid down the rules, and here children could be described as "degenerates." An orphanage was still called an orphanage, and society didn't need to disguise its aims to any noticeable degree. 

In today's society, the same public authority circulates such phrases as barnens bästa i centrum, "the best interests of the child," and similar. The government insists it's only doing what's right for the child these days, with little regard for birth family bonds which are so very critical for a growing human being, without which a person has little hope of becoming a well-adjusted adult. Children can be mercilessly torn from families where an independent observer will have little understanding for the state's actions. Perhaps "the best interests of the child" is merely Newspeak for the state's willingness to seize children from families that refuse to conform and cooperate with the state. The "care" it's felt that the children "need" is rather the oppressive measure of a covertly totalitarian state that's ensuring that society won't have to deal with functional families independent of the state, with the strength that's inherent in an intact nuclear family.

Over the years, several horror stories have emerged from the Swedish foster care system; in the 1970's, Sweden's political elite made use of girls placed at orphanages as prostitutes, some as young as 14 years old, in what was called the Geijer affair. In 1983, German magazine Der Spiegel published an extensive article entitled "Kinder-Gulag" im Sozialstaat Schweden on the state of foster care at the time, likening it to the Soviet system of Gulags. Back then, Europe still enjoyed good investigative journalism as well as a European Court of Human Rights that still had the ability to influence the way public authorities operated. Not so today, when mass media is oh so silent on the topic of foster care abuses, and the ECHR is virtually useless as an institution for the individual families to seek redress for their grievances due to being flooded with cases.


There have been other cases recently, similar to the Domenic one. During the summer of 2009, an Iranian man named Esmail and his Swedish wife Susanne, who have three children together, found these taken at the airport as they were leaving for Iran after having only made a brief stop in Sweden. An anonymous report about alleged child neglect had been made against them, and still today they've not been able to get their children back.


The future looks even more bleak. In a parliamentary bill the other year, 2008/09:So555, the Left Party of Sweden wanted to make it a crime attempting to leave Sweden with children who had legally been taken into state custody, and the authorities were going to be alerted whenever anyone with a LVU order on them attempted to leave, just like criminals. To support the bill, they quoted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the CRC. The bill was voted down, but overall when one browses the bills that have been written on the LVU law, they all have one thing in common - the call for greater jurisdiction and possibly more spending as well.


To learn more about the state of contemporary Swedish society, feel free to have a look at my new book "The Madhouse" where I cover all the things above in greater detail; for now only available as an E-book but soon to be available in print as well.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0046ZS2PA


Or take a peek at my new blog at


http://www.danielhammarberg.com/

HSLDA Analysis of Sept 2 court opinion

HSLDA: Government’s Claws Dig Deeper in Johansson Case

On September 21, 2010, Swedish Administrative Court Chief Judge Peter Freudenthal handed down his decision in the case of Domenic Johansson of Gotland, Sweden, dashing the hopes of his parents for reunification with their son, who has been kept in foster care for over one year. Dominic was seized by Swedish authorities from the plane he and his parents had boarded as they were moving to India, his mother’s home country. Authorities cited untreated cavities in the boy’s teeth, failure to vaccinate, and homeschooling as reasons for taking him into custody.


After multiple appeals, Judge Freudenthal has upheld the decision of Swedish social services officials, who are the engineers behind the case. Domenic has been kept from his parents since June 25, 2009, and has only been allowed to visit with them once every five weeks with a supervised 15-minute telephone call once every two weeks. It has become increasingly apparent that the social workers have no real intention of reuniting this family, and that they have simply transferred Domenic from the Johanssons to the foster family. Domenic is now in the public school system.


Friends, family, and a university professor of psychology testified that the Johanssons are more than capable of parenting Domenic and caring for him. Despite this testimony, and the willingness of the family to do whatever the state wants them to do, Judge Freudenthal decided to go along with the assertions of the social workers that Domenic was better off in the care of the state. Meanwhile, Freudenthal spent almost as much time discussing the fees the appointed lawyers would collect as he did explaining the rationale for the state’s continued custody of Domenic.

About six months after Sweden took him hostage, and where he remains as such today.

Ruby Harrold-Claesson, a noted international human rights lawyer and president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights (nkmr.org), represented Christer Johansson before being removed from the case on the motion of Eva Ernston, Domenic’s appointed attorney. Harrold-Claesson has developed a practice of fighting Swedish social services, a system she calls increasingly “evil.”

“Held Hostage”

“I have never in 20 years of practice seen a case more badly handled,” says Harrold-Claaesson. “This family has been so traumatized that they may never recover. The Swedish government has grossly violated this family’s human rights, both under Swedish law and under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Under the ECHR people have the right to leave their country. But in this case the social services took this poor little boy and...READ MORE

Seeking Guest Bloggers

Seeking Guest Bloggers

Since it's inception more than six months ago, the Friends of Domenic Johansson blog has been written anonymously by one person, with the gracious help of a team of people volunteering behind the scenes with translations and editing. At this juncture, we would like to open the blog to other writers who are passionate about what is happening in Sweden and through it's LVU system and specifically with the Johansson family.

Guest bloggers can choose to write anonymously or use a by-line, if they prefer. Submissions made by guest bloggers will not be compensated, as this is a worldwide, volunteer effort to help Domenic return home and to help educate the world, as well as Swedes, of the dangerous pitfalls in Sweden's LVU system. If you would like to write an article for publication on the Friends of Domenic blog, or on the Swedish version, Vanner till Domenic, please contact us privately at:

returndomenic@aol.com

Thank you for your interest in Domenic's plight and for caring enough to help!

Going Public

Socials Not Happy Family Has Gone Public
Johanssons Ask: What Would You Do For Your Children?

While employees of Gotland Social Services cloak their deeds behind a wall of secrecy, Annie and Christer Johansson have opened their entire lives to the world for scrutiny. "We have no choice. The world must know what is happening in Sweden. We've walked through fire for our son, and will continue to do so until he is returned to us," remarked Christer Johansson, as the September 2, 2010 court hearing challenging the Social's right to keep Domenic approached. "This is how much we love our son. What would you do for your children?"

Gotland Social Services are not happy with the Johanssons for making their story public. Yet, the Johanssons believe they have no choice but to bring their plight to public awareness, as it seems abundantly clear that Gotland Social Services has absolutely no intention of returning Domenic to his parent's care.

This writer is not related to the Johanssons, as some would believe. As a matter of fact, until the Johansson's story became public, spreading across the globe into the United States, this writer had never heard of Domenic, Annie and Christer. Instead, this writer has become interested in the Johansson case because of her own children, a sibling group of 4, whom she and her husband adopted three years ago.

Our adopted children's birth father is in jail for 30 to 50 years for the crimes he perpetrated against these children. The initial goal for our children was reunification with their birth mother. She had never personally harmed her children. Instead, she neglected their needs by not protecting them from their birth father. Even so, Child Protective Services were prepared to reunite her with her children once she completed one demand: attendance of parenting classes. Their birth mother was not asked to walk through fire. She was simply asked to better equip herself by attending parenting classes prior to reunification.

Curiously, our children's birth mother attended all required parenting classes but the very last. For two years, while her children languished in foster care, birth mom provided every excuse as to why she could not finish the classes, fully knowing she needed to do so for reunification to take place. While their birth mother was not required to walk through fire, for some reason she chose not to complete the required parenting course in an effort to have her children restored to her. After two years of waiting, the children were made available for adoption and now reside with us, their new family.

Annie and Domenic, mother and son.

Reunification Never Offered 

In contrast, Annie and Christer have not been charged with any crime or neglect. They've also not been given the opportunity for reunification with Domenic. They've not been offered parenting classes as a possible means of restoration. We are certain if they were, Annie and Christer would have taken the classes expeditiously and would have been star pupils, perhaps among the best to ever pass through such classes.

Annie and Christer have stated repeatedly in court their willingness to do anything, follow any program, and agree with every suggestion from Social Services, if only their child would be restored to them. The shocking fact is: Gotland Social Services has no interest in helping the Johansson family to be reunited. The health of this family is not Social Services' goal at all.

Instead, it appears Gotland Social Services' main intention is to permanently remove Domenic from the care of his parents. Why? Of what crime have Annie and Christer been accused? They've been accused of home schooling the boy - at a time when home schooling was legal in Sweden. They've been accused of delaying or forgoing immunizations - while such a parental decision is legal in Sweden. They've been accused of neglecting two cavities in his baby (milk) teeth - yet the existence of the cavities was not known until after the Socials snatched the boy. (Incidentally, Domenic had received regular dental care in the past, thus proving his parents were not neglecting him in this area. And even had he not, has the existence of cavities in baby teeth become a crime?)

The only requirements laid upon the Johansson family by Gotland Social Services has been total and complete acquiescence to the loss of Domenic. The Johanssons have never been offered a plan for reunification.

The Johanssons refuse to acquiesce to the loss of their child. Understandably so! Domenic is their son. They've loved and tenderly cared for him his entire life. No crime was ever perpetrated against the boy by Annie and Christer, nor anyone else. The only crime this writer, and thousands of others, see is a crime perpetrated by Swedish authorities. Whether purposefully or by mistake, the separation of Domenic from his parents for the aforementioned arbitrary reasons is criminal. 

It is this writer's conclusion, and that of many others, that Annie, Christer and Domenic have fallen victim to a troubling movement in the halls of child protective services worldwide. It appears in many places the priority is not the aiding of citizens, families and children who are endangered or hurt. Instead, the priority is the forming of children according to the social engineering theories of powerful entities in government. The goal is, in fact, arbitrary power and control.

When child protective services remains centered upon their mission of actually protecting children from abusive and neglectful parents - as in the case of this writer's adopted children - children and parents are justly served. However, in the case of Domenic Johansson and - troublingly - a rising number of families across the globe, when child protective services removes a child from the home of loving and capable parents for arbitrary reasons, children and their parents are permanently traumatized, neither parent nor child is served, and the freedom of society is called into question.

As Their Rights Are Trampled, So Are Yours....

While Myths and Fantasies Abound, Truth Quietly Awaits Those Willing to See

An ongoing debate continues across the web regarding the validity of the Johansson Family's claim of human rights violations at the hands of Swedish Social Services. One need not look far to find assertions regarding this case; assertions rooted in myth and fantasy, yet held up as the Holy Grail for why a little boy was stripped of his basic human right to be loved and cared for by his family.

It seems people would rather remain comfortable in their suspicions than seek the truth. Many seem content to acquiesce in being part of the problem, rather than working hard to become part of the solution. Could it be the truth is simply too horrific to face? Is it just easier to believe there were valid reasons to strip this family of their rights, than to confront the insanity occurring within the borders of Sweden?

Domenic, in happier times, flourishing under his parents care.

There are two sides to every story. The Socials have their side, as do the Johanssons. As for the Social's side, the public is provided their reason for taking Domenic in an article published in the Swedish press in June 2009. (Use Google Translate if you need the article in English.) In this article Lena Celion, chair of Sweden's department of Children and Education, emphatically states it is Domenic's "right" to be enrolled in school, and it is the "municipality's duty" to force Domenic to attend Swedish public schools, even when the family had clearly communicated their intentions to leave the country and raise the boy in his mother's native land of India. Celion concludes her argument in support of removing the boy from his family by stating, "It's his right. We are doing this for the boy's sake."

The "boy's sake" and the "municipality's duty" are the reasons the Socials have publicly stated for taking Domenic, and the court documents this writer has read clearly support the Social's public claims of the boy's "right" to a public school education as cause for his removal. Yet, while many will not accept as truth the Johansson's side of the story, many of the same people also do not accept the Social's publicly stated side of the story. Why? Is it because such an abuse of power by a government entity is too difficult to believe? Is it easier to dismiss the Socials' reasons for taking the boy than it is to face the reality of their reasons?  Is it easier on the minds of the populace to turn a blind eye to the truth than to believe a child's life and rights can be destroyed for the sake of a public school education? And when we consider the Social's "concerns" for Domenic's rights, we should also consider what Domenic's answer would be if he were asked. Surely, this same little boy who is reduced to tears at the end of each state supervised visit with his parents, if asked, would beg for his right to be home with his family!

Yes, there are two sides to this story. You've just read the social's side, now consider both sides in context. You have a unique opportunity to do so because the human rights attorneys aiding the Johanssons have made legal documents available for you to read.

Domenic today, suffering under state care, with all his rights removed.

If you are one of those who does not believe the Johansson's version of the story and who also dismisses the Social's public statements, then we ask you consider the position of the attorneys defending the Johanssons. These attorneys are privileged to all court documents from both sides of the argument. Therefore, it is fair to say that these same attorneys have read all the claims made by the Socials, yet they continue to stand by the Johanssons. The fact that the attorneys have read and seen all complaints, yet have still pressed on with this case is an indication to any reasonable person that something on the Social's side is seriously amiss. All one need do to learn both sides of the story is read the appeal to the European Courts on Human Rights.

As for this writer, I will trust those who have the unique privilege to information from both sides of the story and who, after reading and legally considering all the information, continue to press forward in the effort to see Domenic restored to his family.  For as the rights of Domenic and his parents are trampled, so are yours and mine. And as their rights are restored and protected, so are yours and mine.

Catch 22: Cruelty at its Utmost

Excerpt from the December 2009 Court Decision analysis article

Late 2009, about 6 months after Domenic is stripped of his parents.

By December 2009, six months after their precious son was ripped from them, Christer was a man willing to cooperate fully with Visby Social Services, in an effort to restore Domenic to his family. In a sworn statement before the Chamber Courts, this father agreed to follow the entire care plan devised by the Socials for Domenic, with the exception that Domenic's care be provided while he continued to live in mandatory foster care. The Johanssons were willing to do everything and anything Social Services of Gotland demanded, so they might finally have their son restored home.

The most cruel aspect of this case is boldly recorded in the December 2009 Court decision. In a Catch 22 scenario, the Johanssons lose their son if they agree to the entire LVU care plan, which includes mandatory foster care; and the Johanssons lose their son if they agree to the entire LVU care plan, with the exception of mandatory foster care. In conclusion, the court wrote, " Question is therefore if needed care can be given voluntarily. In the care plan is, among other things, said that Domenic should be placed in a foster home which Annie Johansson and Christer Johansson have not agreed to. Chamber Court can therefore state that needed consent to needed care is not present. In such a case, the Provincial Court’s decision to give Domenic care according to LVU should stand. The appeals should therefore be denied."

In other words, the Johanssons submitted to every demand of the Social Services of Gotland. Those demands included what some would describe as a coerced court admission that they had made wrong choices for Domenic as accused by Social Services. The demands also included that the Johanssons must agree to everything in the LVU care plan, including mandatory foster care for their son. Therefore, they were damned if they submitted to all demands and damned if they did not. The maximum possible compliance was obtained from this suffering family, including denying their own natural way of life. Then, when they were in complete submission, they were denied everything.

How to understand this case?
 

Add caption

The plain and simple facts are these: A loved, fortunate and healthy child was taken without legal process from his parents for indeterminate (and faulty) ideological reasons. His family was then punished for the trauma they had experienced, and because they did not simply acquiesce in the loss of their child. There is nothing legal, nothing logical, and nothing just in this scenario. That it could happen in a modern and supposedly democratic nation defies belief. Any free citizen of good will, in any country of the world, should be concerned when a government has the power to act in this way unhindered. This case should concern all of us. All parents, all families, and all who believe in human rights and human dignity.

Read entire article here.

Read Petition Sent to European Court of Human Rights

Read the Entire Text of the Petition Sent on Behalf of the Johanssons to the European Court of Human Rights

Thank you to all helping in this case and thank you to the rest of you supporting them, spreading the news of their plight and praying for this grieving family. Thanks to HSLDA, ADF and Harrold-Caesson, the entire world now can read legal documents which back all the claims by the Johanssons of maltreatment, severe psychological abuse and grave injustices at the hands of the Swedish government. You will find the document here: Petition to the European Court of Human Rights on Behalf of the suffering Domenic, Annie and Christer Johansson, as well as extended Johansson family in Sweden and Extended Kumar family in India.