5 saffron extremists including a Mangalurean are key suspects in Gauri Lankesh murder

Washington, May 29: US President Donald Trump while speaking with reporters at the White House on Thursday said that he is more liked in India than the media in his own country --the United States.

"I know. And they like me in India. I think they like me in India certainly more than the media likes me in this country, " Trump told reporters at his Oval office.

"And I like Modi (Prime Minister Narendra Modi). I like your prime minister a lot. He's a great gentleman. A great gentleman," he added further while briefing the reporters.

But when asked over ties between India and China, the US President said, "They have a big conflict going with India and China. Two countries with 1.4 billion people. Two countries with very powerful militaries. And India is not happy, and probably China is not happy."

Reiterating his offer to mediate between India and China on the border issue, Trump said that he spoke to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is not in "good mood" about the ongoing situation with Beijing.

However, informed sources from the Ministry of External Affairs told ANI on Friday that there has been no recent contact between Prime Minister Modi and the US President. The last conversation between them took place on April 4, 2020, on the subject of hydroxychloroquine.

Asked about his Wednesday's tweet regarding his offer to mediate between India and China, Trump said, "I would do that. If they (China and India) thought it would help." However, Trump did not clarify when did he speak to Modi.

Trump on Wednesday tweeted that he is "ready, willing and able to mediate" between India and China."We have informed both India and China that the United States is ready, willing and able to mediate or arbitrate their now raging border dispute," the US President said.

In response to Trump's mediation offer, India said on Thursday that it is engaged with the Chinese side to resolve the border issue peacefully.

India's Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said that the two sides have established mechanisms both at military and diplomatic levels to resolve situations that may arise in border areas peacefully through dialogue and "continue to remain engaged through these channels."

Indian and Chinese field commanders have been holding talks on de-escalating the tensions.

China has also struck a conciliatory tone on the border issue with India, saying the two countries pose no threat to each other and should resolve their differences through communication, while not allowing them to overshadow bilateral relations.

"We should never let differences overshadow our relations. We should resolve differences through communication. China and India should be good neighbours of harmonious coexistence and good partners to move forward hand in hand," said Chinese Ambassador to India, Sun Weidong, on Wednesday.

The tensions escalated between India and China following a number of confrontations between soldiers of both armies.

Troops of India and China were engaged in two face-offs in Eastern Ladakh and North Sikkim along the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC), where troops from both sides suffered injuries early this month.

Studies over the anti-malarial drug, which is believed to cure the highly contagious coronavirus, have shown side-effects, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organisation. But Trump continues to defend his decision to take hydroxychloroquine saying he believes that it gives an additional level of safety.

Veteran journalist P. Sainath has said that the nation is in a crisis. And this crisis is not limited to just the rural area. It has become a national crisis at various areas such as agriculture, education, economy, job creation etc.

He was delivering the endowment lecture on the topic ‘Indian democracy at the post-liberalization and post-truth era’ at Media Manthan 2020 organized by the PG department of journalism and mass communication at St Aloysius College (Autonomous). 

Mr Sainath said that the many policies adopted in the 90s led to India becoming unusually unequal. Referring to the speech Ambedkar had made at the Constituent Assembly while handing over the draft of the Constitution, Mr Sainath said, “Ambedkar had warned about the weakness of Indian democracy that liberty without equality allows the supremacy of a few over the multitude. Liberty, equality and fraternity must be kept together as we cannot have one without the other.” 

Mr Sainath stated that the agrarian crisis was no longer about the loss of productivity, employment or about farmer suicide; it was a societal, civilizational crisis. Commenting on the lopsided policies such as cow-slaughter ban, he explained how cow slaughter ban had adversely affected many industries due to their interdependency. While Muslims who slaughtered cows were rendered helpless, the cattle traders who were mostly OBCs lost their earnings as the cattle prices crashed. An important industry like Kolhapur sandals industry in Maharashtra went bankrupt as a result of the cow slaughter ban in Maharashtra. He said the policymakers had no idea how the rural industries were interconnected. Demonetisation too devastated the rural economy as 98 percent of rural transactions happen through cash. 

Mr Sainath also spoke about the crisis of inequality which affects the Dalits and the Adivasis far more than anyone else as 90 percent of the rural households take home less than Rs 10,000/- per month. “Women are yet another group whose labour is never counted in the gross domestic product. Women and girls globally do unpaid work which amounts to about 12.5 billion working hours per year. Monetarily speaking, this is worth 10.8 trillion dollars,” Mr Sainath added. 

Speaking about the crisis of jobs Mr Sainath said that major companies were laying off employees just to create more profits for the investors and the adoption of artificial intelligence in the industry would further destroy millions of jobs.

Rector of St Aloysius College Institutions Fr Dionysius Vaz SJ, Principal Dr (Fr) Praveen Martis SJ, HOD of Journalism and Mass Communication department Dr (Fr) Melwyn Pinto SJ were present.

‘Veerappan and Vijay Mallya’s business models are interesting!’

Addressing the gathering during his endowment lecture on Friday, Mr Sainath made an interesting comment on the so called ‘revenue model’. “Whenever I visit IIMs and IITs for lectures on my PARI project, the students there ask me what my revenue model for my project is. I tell them that I do not have a revenue model. In fact, journalism does not begin with a revenue model. Gandhiji, Ambedkar, Bhagat Singh were all great journalists. But they did not have a revenue model,” Mr Sainath said.

On a lighter note, he said that the best revenue model that he liked was that of forest brigand Veerappan and liquor baron Vijay Mallya. “Veerappan ruled the forest for forty years and from the top ministers to the villagers he could dictate terms and liver royally. Similarly, Mallya’s revenue model was to steal the banks and run away abroad and live like a king,” Mr Sainath added.

Journalism is not and can never be a business. It is a calling, he opined. While newspaper can be a business, television can be a business, journalism per se cannot be reduced to a business. “Unfortunately today, journalists are recruited on a contract basis and they have no bargaining power; and there are no unions to fight for their cause. Hence, they are at the mercy of the corporate media houses for their survival and are made to write stories that cannot be called journalism,” Mr Sainath said.

Answering a question as to the pressures he faced as a journalist, he said that external pressures from the government or others could be very well handled. It is the internal pressures from once own media house that journalists find it difficult to manage.

New Delhi, Mar 4: The Supreme Court on Wednesday revoked the ban of cryptocurrency imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 2018.

Pronouncing the verdict, the three-judge bench of the apex court said the ban was 'disproportionate'.

The bench included Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice V Ramasubramanian.

The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), whose members include cryptocurrency exchanges, and others had approached the top court objecting to a 2018 RBI circular directing regulated entities to not deal with cryptocurrencies.

Advocate Ashim Sood, appearing for IAMI, submitted that Reserve Bank of India lacked jurisdiction to forbid dealings in cryptocurrencies. The blanket ban was based on an erroneous understanding that it was impossible to regulate cryptocurrencies, Sood submitted.

The petitioners had argued that the RBI's circular taking cryptocurrencies out of the banking channels would deplete the ability of law enforcement agencies to regulate illegal activities in the industry.

IAMAI had claimed the move of RBI had effectively banned legitimate business activity via the virtual currencies (VCs).

The RBI on April 6, 2018, had issued the circular that barred RBI-regulated entities from "providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those of transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies".