Now, in a huge discourse on Foreign Policy on national relationships, we are entitled to criticise other States. The Government of India may use restrained language; we, in Parliament, may use its restrained language, but on the Net, you will find a number of comments about a country where Osama Bin Laden was eventually found. We also in politics say, ‘Terror as an instrument of State Policy, the Government is encouraging it.’ We criticise the institutions. My fear is that they will come within the meaning of the words, ‘insulting any other nation’. Therefore, a legitimate criticism, which is Constitutionally permissible, which doesn’t really offend foreign relations with friendly States, is something which is permissible. So, if I may just, in a nutshell, say, I am with the architecture that the hon. Minister is creating, because, if, as I said, there is some kind of a communal or caste problem, the Net can go viral and you can have a frenzy in the society, certain kind of information which creates disorder in the society may have to be restrained. But, then, to say, ‘take that power and then extend it by the use of such words where legitimate expression may become difficult’, there would be apprehension. Powers are, normally, assumed under these rules on the assumption that they won’t be misused. We feel the pinch only when they are misused. Therefore, I would urge the Minister to kindly reconsider the language of the kind of restraints that he wants to bring as a result of this notification. Thank you, Sir.