Evacuee Property in India and Pakistan
Author(s): Joseph B. Schechtman
Source: Pacific Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1951), pp. 406-413
Published by: Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2753454 .
Accessed: 23/06/2014 04:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Pacific Affairs.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:26:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PacificAflairs
patronisingly
avuncularWesterners,
who, throughtheirverydesireto "preserve"Bali, determined
Bali's youngmen to "progress"out of theirmuseum
status.For of one thingtherecan be no doubt: Bali has somethingthatis to
be foundnowhereelse in SoutheastAsia-a living,vitalculturethatis purely
Asian and thathas produceda happypeople.For thisalone,Bali meritsthe
most sympathetic
understanding
and attention.
Den Pasar, September I95I
JOHN COAST
Evacuee Propertyin India and Pakistan
IN the wake of the partitionin August I947 of the subcontinent
of India
into two independentstates,and as a resultof subsequentcommunaldisturbances,a huge two-waymigrationoccurred.'The mostrecentdata supplied to thewriterby theIndian Ministryof Rehabilitation2
put thenumber
of Hindu and Sikh refugeesfromWest Pakistanat fivemillion,3while the
Pakistan Ministryof Refugees and Rehabilitationplaces the number of
Moslems who have migratedfrom India to West Pakistan at 7,900,000.4
Accordingto these figures,nearlythirteenmillionpersonshave been uprooted.
This mass of uprootedhumanityabandoned an immenseamount of
propertyon both sides of the frontier.
Accordingto officialIndian sources,
non-Moslemrefugeesvacatedmorethaneightmillionacresof land in West
Punjab alone; otherland was relinquishedby non-Moslemsin Sind, the
North West FrontierProvince,Bahawalpur, Baluchistanand Kharpur.
Moslem refugeesfromEast Punjab and the statesof Patiala, Nabha, Jind,
Faridkotand Kapurthalain India abandonedsome fourmillionacres.5In
addition,houses,factories,
machineryand huge storesof raw materialswere
leftbehindbothin India and in Pakistan.
1 See "The Hindu-MoslemExchangeof Population"in JosephB. Schechtman,
Population
Transfers
in Asia,New York,I949, pp. I-50.
2 The present
analysisis based on an extensivestudy,the firstdraftof whichwas submitted
The writerhas takeninto consideration
forcriticism.
to the Indian and Pakistangovernments
extensiveand valuable commentsprovidedin the springof i95i by the Indian Ministryof
Rehabilitation(referredto hereafteras "Indian Comments") and the PakistanMinistryof
Refugeesand Rehabilitation("Pakistan Comments").
3 Indian Comments.
4 PakistanComments.
5 ConcerningEvacuee Property,Ministryof Information
and Broadcasting,New Delhi,
1950,
p. 6.
406
This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:26:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Evacuee Propertyin India and Pakistan
Indian sourcesestimatethe totalvalue of Hindu and Sikh evacueepropertyin Pakistan at some 38.i billion rupees (US$8 billion) and that of
Moslem refugeepropertyin India at some 3.8 billionrupees (US$8oo mildiscountthe accuracyof thesefigures:
lion).' Pakistansourcesemphatically
insiststhatthe propertyclaims
the Ministryof Refugeesand Rehabilitation
filedby Hindus and Sikhs on whichtheyare in partbased "are fantastically
"Pakistanhas been unable in the timeavailableto catalogue
exaggerated".7
the extentof propertyleftby the Hindus and Sikhs,and makes no pretension of knowingthe value of propertyabandonedin India by Moslems."8
it is safeto assumethat
Withoutweighingthe meritsof thiscontroversy,
totalsmanybilinvolvedon bothsides of the frontier
the value of property
involvedis of vitalconlions of rupees.Settlementof the propertyinterests
cern to millionsof personsand representsone of the thorniestproblems
bothIndia and Pakistan.During the fouryearssincePartition,
confronting
the two governmentshave made numerousattempts,mostlyabortive,to
reach a just and workableagreementon the matter.Inter-Dominionpacts
have been concluded-and broken;and whereunilaterallegislationhas been
measures.
enacted,it has caused violentobjectionsand, usually,retaliatory
whileit was stillregarded
At an earlystageof thechaotictwo-wayflight,
as a temporaryphenomenon,unconditionaland automaticrestorationof
was thecentralprocedureagreedupon.
refugee-owners
to returning
property
on SepAn ordinanceenactedby the West Punjab (Pakistan) government
tember9, I947, and an "Evacuees Act" issued five days later by the East
of the evacuees'
Punjab (India) governmentprovidedfor the preservation
by speciallyappointedcustodians.
property
deviationsfromthisprinciplebegan to
Very soon,however,far-reaching
Beforethe end of SeptemberI947, the
occur on both sides of the frontier.
issued a new ordinanceempoweringits RehabiliWest Punjab government
tation Commissionerto take possessionand "permitthe occupationby
[Moslem] refugeesor otherpersons"of lands and buildingsabandonedby
Hindu and Sikh evacuees.9Althoughsuch occupationwas limitedto the
period of one year, it was obviouslybound to create innumerablefaits
accomp/iswhichwerenot apt to be undonelater,and thusreducedthelikerecoveringtheirproperty.
lihood of the evacuees'ultimately
6
Ibid.
has himselfdescribedtheseclaimsas "not worththe
The Indian Ministerof Rehabilitation
paperon which [they] were made". The HindustanTimes,New Delhi, Februaryio, 1950.
8 The Evacuee Property
Problem-Pakistan'sCase, Ministryof Refugeesand Rehabilitation,
Karachi,I950, p. 3.
9 Sections4(2), 8 and ii (A), Ordinanceto Providefor EconomicRehabilitation
in West
7
Punjab. See Concerning Refugee Property,cit., pp.
I-I2.
407
This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:26:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PacificAffairs
Anotherstep in the same directionwas takenin OrdinanceNo. VII of
of his propertyby an evacueeDecember i, I947, whichmade the transfer
ownerdependenton a seriesof complicatedlegalisticconditionsand thusin
effectvirtuallynullifiedhis rightto dispose of it."0 Moreover,even if the
conditions,the PakistanCustodian
ownercould satisfyall of the restrictive
of theproperty
to refuseto recognisethetransfer
was empowerednonetheless
involvedif he regardedit as "prejudicialto the prescribedobjects"of the
of Moslem refugeesfromIndia.
ordinance-whichincluded rehabilitation
to a Hindu or
of property
SectionI5 of the Ordinancemade therestoration
upon his returnto Pakistan.The overwhelmcontingent
Sikh evacuee-owner
ing majorityof the evacueeswere not in a positionto returnin view of the
and the Custodiancould
insecureconditionsthenprevailingin the country,
to thosewho did return,
oftheirproperty
stillrefuseto permittherestoration
on the ground that such restorationwould be prejudicialto the abovementioned"prescribedobjects"of the Ordinance.Thus, unable to recover,
the refugeesfromPakistanhave seen their
sell or exchangetheirproperty,
invalidated.
to
it
largely
right
Indian sources assertthat when the matterwas discussedat the first
held in New Delhi in DecemInter-DominionConference,
secretariat-level
suggested
to Indian protests,
replying
Pakistan
the
representatives,
ber I947,
Moslem
to
in
action
regard
similar
take
should
Indian
government
the
that
deny emphatically
evacuee propertyabandoned in India. Pakistan officials
thatsuch a suggestionwas ever made." In any case, the East Punjab governmenton JanuaryI2, 1948, issued an ordinanceamendingthe Act of
SeptemberI4, I947, in order "to bring it into line with the practicein
Pakistan"."2
FROMtheoutsetthe main pointof discordbetweenthe Indian and Pakistan
has concernedthe methodof settlingthe evacuees' property
governments
has takenthe view thatunderthe existing
claims.The Indian government
"the only reasonablesolutionseemed to be an exchangeof
circumstances
evacuee propertyat governmentlevel. . Each Dominion should assume
leftbehindin its terriforthe totalvalue of evacueeproperty
responsibility
in value to the creditor
tories,the debtorDominion payingthe difference
10 Ibid., pp. 13-15.
11 The Ministry
insiststhat the purposeof the ordinance
of Refugeesand Rehabilitation
of evacuees.. . . Even had thisspeciallegislato "was in factto safeguardthe property
referred
and the paymentof conof transfers
of registration
the formalities
tion not been introduced,
would have to be observedunderthe Indian Registration
authority
siderationto the registering
of the Custodianmade
of PropertyAct, whichhas been in forcesince i908. The intervention
(PakistanComments.)
no substantialdifference."
cit.,pp. i6, i 8.
12 Concerning
RefugeeProperty,
408
This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:26:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EvacueeProperty
in Indiaand Pakistan
Dominion."13Pakistanhas held thatthe evacueesshould"themselveshave
withoutanygovernthe fullestfreedomin disposingof theirown properties
mentintervention".14
In March I948 an India-PakistanJointOfficialCommittee,appointedto
forInter-Dominion
considertheproblem,submitted
a Draft-Scheme
Evacuee
PropertyAgreement,which,in regard to agriculturalproperty,fullyendorsedthe Indian view. It recommendedthat"The Dominion in whichthe
evacueeagricultural
property
is situatedshall acquireit on paymentof a fair
value" ensuredby a JointValuation Board and determinedon the basis of
the averageof pricesprevailingforsimilarland betweenJuneI927 and June
I947.15
Since representatives
of Pakistanparticipatedin the preparationof this
Draft-Scheme,
it mightreasonablyhave been expectedthatthe questionwas
therebysettled.In fact,however,when thethirdInter-Dominion
Conference
convenedat Lahore on July22, I948, to considerthe draftsubmittedin
March, and the problem of evacuees' agriculturalpropertycame up for
discussion,"the main question to be decided" remained,accordingto the
officialminutes,"whetherthe settlement
should be as betweenthe governmentsof the two Dominions or as betweenindividualevacuees".Pakistan
argued that "no definitedecisioncould be taken on this point until more
13
14
Ibid., p.
20.
The Evacuee PropertyProblem, cit., p. I 7.
It is worthnotingthat the experiencegained frompopulationtransfers
in Europe during
the precedingthreedecadeswould seem on the whole to supportthe Indian position.Attempts
to leave the disposal of abandonedpropertyto individualtransferees
or to compensatethem
individually
on thebasisof evaluationoftheirparticular
property
invariably
failed.The procedure
for such evaluationprovedexceedinglylong, complicatedand susceptibleto controversy
since
it involvedan extremely
intricateproblemof appraisaland a difficult
adjustmentbetweenthe
currenciesand standardsof value of the different
countriesconcerned.In the finalanalysis,it
was unavoidablyunsatisfactory
to all of the interested
parties.
Even less satisfactory
were attemptsto arrangefor directpaymentof compensation
to individualproperty
ownersby the countryof departure.They were bothinadequateand belated.
The transferees
themselveswere the main sufferers
fromthe inherentshortcomings
of this
system,whichwerefrequently
accentuated
bya lack of goodwillon thepartof theauthorities
of
the countryof departure.See, forexample,JosephB. Schechtman,
EuropeanPopulationTransfers,1939-1945, New York, 1946, pp. 470-71.
15 "To facilitate
payment,"thereportexplained,"the two Dominionsshall mutuallytransfer
theirrespectiveliabilitiestowardstheirevacuee ownersand adjust any difference
betweenthe
totalof theseliabilitiesin theformof BearerBonds. . . bearingI 1/2% interest
freeof income-tax
and of not morethan 20 years'maturity.
Such Bonds are to be freelytransferable
betweenthe
two Dominions."A list of evacuee-owners
and the rentsdue them on agriculturalproperty
was to be exchangedsemi-annually
betweenthe two Dominions,and paymentof the difference
was to be made by one Dominionto the other.The rentsso collectedwere to be paid by the
receivingDominionto the properevacuee-owner.
The full textof thisreportappearsin Delhi
Agreement Dated 14th September 1948 and Minutes of the Inter-Dominion Conference,Karachi,
10-13 January1949, Karachi,1949, pp. 80-97.
409
This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:26:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PacificAffairs
as it was at
postponed,
A decisionwas accordingly
data wereavailable".16
andJune
in Karachiin January
conferences
Inter-Dominion
thesubsequent
complained
ofRehabilitation
I949.17As lateas JuneI951 theIndianMinister
thefinaladjustment
postponing
was"foronereasonoranother
thatPakistan
evacueeproperty".18
of theagricultural
as well,verylittle
urbanproperty
ofimmovable
thesettlement
Respecting
favored
theprovision
Committee
Official
headwayhasbeenmade.The Joint
by
fortheindividualsale and exchangeof suchproperty
of fullfacilities
pricesand withgovernat reasonable
on thefreemarket,
evacuee-owners
in January
theKarachiConference
Aftermuchargument,
mentassistance.19
alleges,howThe Indiangovernment
to thateffect.
I949 reachedagreement
ever,thatthismethodwas triedforaboutsix monthsin I949 and thatit
duringtheentireperiodonlyone sale was effected.
provedunsatisfactory:
satiswas a mutually
movableproperty
to abandoned
Onlywithrespect
Evacueeownerswere
reachedand largelyimplemented.
agreement
factory
and to exportor sellit as
of suchproperty
to applyforrecovery
permitted
theywished.
to achievea
IN fact,both Pakistanand India abandonedall attempts
propof immovable
solution
thedisposition
regarding
satisfactory
mutually
govto enactlegislation
or urban.Theyproceeded
agricultural
erty,
whether
and to disposeofit in
territories
in theirrespective
erningevacueeproperty
Neithergovernment
couldhave
of theirrefugeepopulations.
the interests
these
taskofhousingandresettling
evenbegunto copewiththestupendous
makinguseofthehundreds
without
immigrants
destitute
ofutterly
millions
whichhad beenhastily
of fields,housesand otherpremises
of thousands
No othercoursewas opento them.
evacuated.
thatlegaltitleto theabandonedproperty
recognizing
Whileostensibly
of India and
remainswithits absentindividualowners,thegovernments
refugees,
on it theincoming
thisproperty
and settled
Pakistanrequisitioned
I950 morethan
existed.By September
forwhomno otheraccommodation
Ibid., p. 98.
Ibid., p. 72.
18 India News Bulletin,
D.C., August15, 1951.
Washington,
19Ibid. Accordingto one observerof the implementation
in Pakistanof the Karachiagreement,the scheme"has not workedwell". "Prospectivebuyershave been discouragedbecause
settledscoresof
the premiseswere not available for immediateoccupancy[the government
Moslem refugeesthere,who could not be dislodged]and therehas been a wide gap between
pricesasked and pricesoffered."RichardSymonds,The Making of Pakistan,London, 1949,
p. i62.
16
17
41O
This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:26:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Evacuee Propertyin India and Pakistan
5,300,000acresoflandin Indiahad beenallotted
to 544,300 HinduandSikh
agricultural
refugeefamilies.Of 3.5 millionurbanevacueesfromWest
Pakistan,abouttwo millionhad been afforded
and morethan
shelter,
In Pakistanby
-50,ooohad been assignedshopsabandonedby Moslems.20
the fall of I949, approximately
had been
fourmillionMoslemrefugees
resettled
or somehowabsorbed
in ruralareas,and anotheri.5 millionhad
beenaddedto thepopulation
of urbanareas.Of 2,473WestPunjaburban
factories
abandoned
byHindusor Sikhs,I,798had beenallotted
to Moslem
refugees.2'
Legallyspeaking,
all oftheseallotments
havebeenmadeon a temporary
basissincetheproperty
rightsarestillvestedin theabsentowners,
whoare
entitled
to sellthemon thefreemarket.
Butit is inconceivable
thatthemillionsof resettled
refugees,
ruraland urbanalike,couldeverbe removed
in
orderto enablereturning
evacueesto recoveror sell theirholdingsfreely.
Realistically
speaking,
the problemof abandonedimmovable
inproperty
evitably
boilsdownto thatof thecompensation
to be paid by thegovernmentof thecountry
of departure
to itsevacueesfortheirproperty
whichit
has appropriated
and distributed
to itsrefugee
inhabitants.
No noticeable
progress
has thusfarbeenmadein thisrespect.
Pakistan
claimsthatitis notyetpossible
tomakea reasonably
accurate
estimate
ofthe
valueofevacueeproperty.22
A widelyheldIndianviewis that"Pakistan
has
so farnevershownanyanxiety
to acceptanybasisof calculation
and does
notwantanysettlement"
since"in caseofsettlement
on government
togov,ernment
basisitwillhavetopaya hugeamount
toIndiainviewofthegreat
disparity
in thevalueofevacueeproperty
inthetwocountries".23
theendofI947, thetwo-way
migration-of
Moslemsin onedirection
andofHindusandSkihsintheother-waslimited
essentially
toEastPunjab
and WestPakistan.Thereafter,
however,
in the wake of increasing
communaltensions,
a stream
ofMoslemrefugees
begantoflowfromtheIndian
provinceof West Bengal (population:20 millionHindusand 8 million
UNTIL
IndianNews Bulletin,August24 and September
27, 1950.
Symonds,op. cit., pp. 139-41.
22 An official
Pakistansourcehas explainedthatthe government
"could not committhemselves to any liabilities"since "the value of land is in any case doubtfulbecauseof the uncertaintyof futurewater suppliesfor veryconsiderableacreagesof land". Pakistanargues that
India is in possessionof the head works of veryextensivecanal systems,and that if India
"were to interrupt
the flowof waterto thesecanals (as she did temporarily
in 1948) vastareas
of rich fertileland would be renderedvalueless".Similarly,withregardto immovableurban
property,
the Pakistangovernment
"could not take the responsibility
fortakingit over as they
would thenhave to findcustomers
forit". EvacueeProperty
Problem,cit.,pp. 8-9, i9.
23 Mehta Puran Chand, "Evacuee Property",
The People,New Delhi, April22, 1951.
20
21
4"I
This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:26:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PacificAflairs
as I,I71,938.24On
was reported
Moslems);as ofJune26, i950, theirnumber
8,
July
7, i95o, and
i95i, some4,784,000
theotherhand,betweenFebruary
East
Pakistan(populafrom
are saidto havemovedto India
non-Moslems
tion:32 millionMoslemsand io millionHindus).25 The totalvalueof the
and otherassetsabandonedin East Pakistanup to June30,
realproperty
of WestBengalat 870
by theChiefMinister
estimated
i950, was officially
to East Pakistan
millionrupees(US$i82,700,000). Moslemswho migrated
leftbehindin WestBengal350,000 acresofland,ofwhich250,000 acreshad
to Hindurefugees.26
beendistributed
bymid-ig5o
ofPakistan
signedonAprilio, i950, bythePrimeMinisters
An agreement
to carrywiththem
shouldbe permitted
thatrefugees
and India27provided
and cashup to I50 rupees.Ownership
all of theirmovablepersonaleffects
ofitsowner.
bytheevacuation
wasnottobe affected
property
ofimmovable
evenifoccupiedbyanbeforetheend of i950, hisproperty,
If he returned
he was
to him.If he chosenotto return,
otherperson,was to be restored
bysaleorexchange.
freetodisposeofhisproperty
in a seriesof
was completed
agreement
This ratherhastily-formulated
heldin New Delhi and Karachiin Juneand August
conferences
informal
should
fromthesaleofmovableproperty
thatproceeds
I950.28 It was agreed
of the
or to thegovernment
directly,
be paid eitherto theevacuee-owner
to evacueefordisbursement
to whichtheevacueehad departed,
country
seizedforrehabilitation
purposeswas to be reowners.Movableproperty
shouldbe paid through
compensation
storedto itsowner,or,alternatively,
country.29
ofthereceiving
representative
thediplomatic
a kindof comThus,it appearsthatwithrespectto movableproperty
over whethersettlement
promisesolutionwas foundto the controversy
basis.The agreement
or an individual
shouldbe madeon a governmental
ofdeparture
bythecountry
ofpayment
procedures
foralternative
provided
of thecountry
or to thegovernment
to theevacuee-owner
-eitherdirectly
tohim.In thecaseofseizedmovableproperty
fordisbursement
ofreception
the
was to be paidonlythrough
compensation
whichcouldnotbe restored,
of reception.
of thecountry
representatives
diplomatic
Karachi,July2i, I 950.
Affairs,
Pakistan
India News Bulletin,July25, I 95 I .
HindustanStandard,Calcutta,October6, i950.
27 The full textof the agreement
D. C.,
appearsin The Middle East Journal,Washington,
24
25
26
July 1950, pp. 344-46.
28 India News Bulletin,
JulyI2 and August24, I950.
29 Press communique,
Karachi,June29, i950.
of Refugeesand Rehabilitation,
Ministry
412
This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:26:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Evacuee Propertyin India and Pakistan
it was agreed to "pledge thatthe
With respectto immovableproperty,
returningmigrantswill be entitledto the restorationof theirimmovable
thosethatare
includinghousesrequisitionedby the government,
property",
and agriculin the possessionof thirdpartieswithoutproperauthorization,
turallands, whethervacantor undercultivation.Rent or compensationfor
requisitionedpropertywas to be promptlyassessed and paid over to the
owner.
of imstillplaced upon the restoration
The main stresswas, therefore,
movablepropertyto returningevacuees,on the fallaciousassumptionthat
most of the refugeeswould eventuallyreturnto theirformerplaces of residence. With regardto the mannerof paymentof compensationfor requiprincipleof directpaymentto the
the Pakistan-supported
sitionedproperty,
prevailed.
evacuee-owner
Immediatelyafterthe conclusionof the New Delhi agreement,both
Customs
took thenecessarystepsto ensureits implementation.
governments
and to avoid anykind
to relaxexistingrestrictions
wereinstructed
authorities
of harassmentof migrants.
the problemof
difficulty,
To the foreignstudentof the four-year-old
settlementof the propertyinterests-andparticularlythose pertainingto
immovablepossessions-ofthe millionsof Hindus, Moslemsand Sikhs who
have migratedto and fromWest Pakistanappearsto have reachedan almost
hopelessstalemate.The morerecentcase involvingmigrantsfromEast and
Althoughthe clauses of the April
West Bengal seems somewhatdifferent.
I950 agreementintendedto eliminatethe causes of mass migrationwere
implementedand the two-wayexodus continuesunabated,
not successfully
of propertyinterestsappear to have been
the clauses governingsettlement
appliedin a generallyequitablemanner.In a note of September28, I95I, to
statedthatofthe234,450
of Pakistan,theIndian government
thegovernment
Moslem migrantswho had returnedto East Bengal by theend of May I95I,
The writerlacks
previouslyabandoned.30
i89,240 had regainedland property
similar over-alldata concerningPakistan, but the Pakistan Ministerfor
Minoritiesreportedin JanuaryI95I thatof the 3i,660 Hindus who had returnedto the localitiesof Maria, Shepur and Dohara, 30,893 had regained
their houses and agriculturallands.31 There seems to be less reason for
practicerelatingto management,sale or
satisfactionwith administrative
exchangeof propertybelongingto evacueeswho have chosennot to return.
I95I
New York,November
Jamaica,
30
i6,
India News Bulletin,October
JOSEPH
B.
SCHECHTMAN
195I.
31 PakistanAffairs,
JanuaryI9, 1951.
413
This content downloaded from 132.74.95.21 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:26:07 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions