Goa deputy speaker slams government for failing to check cow vigilantes

With the beginning of Ramzan just about 10 days away, Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangi Mahali, the chairperson of the Islamic Centre of India and the Imam of Aishbagh Eidgah has issued an advisory to people on how to observe Ramzan during the lockdown.

In his appeal, the Sunni cleric, who is a member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), has urged people that the holy month of Ramzan is likely to begin from April 25. The lockdown may also be extended beyond April 14.

"In this case, it is advised that people observe roza (fast) and do iftar (meal to break the fast) in the evenings at their homes. There should be no congregational prayers in the mosque but only at homes. Only those who stay or are staying at a mosque should pray there and that too while maintaining adequate social distance," said Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangi Mahali in a video message.

The cleric, in the 12-point advisory, has asked people to fast as is mandatory in Islam and to pray for the end of the pandemic, during the month of worship.

The advisory says that those who used to arrange for iftar of poor and needy persons at the mosque, should continue to do so this year as well but the food should be distributed to the needy.

"Those who conducted Iftar parties in Ramzan should give the money kept for it in charity. Not more than five people should be present at any time at a mosque," the cleric added.

Earlier for April 8 and April 9, both Shia and Sunni clerics had appealed to the people to stay indoors and pray on the occasion of Shab-e-Baraat, respectively. To ensure full compliance of the lockdown, the gates of several graveyards in the city were locked up by the caretakers since traditionally Muslims visit graves of their ancestors on Shab-e-Baraat--the night of Allah's forgiveness, to pray for their ancestors.

Mumbai, Jul 20: The Bombay High Court on Monday asked the NIA and the Maharashtra government to inform it about the health condition of poet Varavara Rao, an accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoists links case, and if his family could be allowed to see him "from a reasonable distance".

The directions came after Rao's lawyer told the court that the activist was "almost on his deathbed".

Rao, 81, is currently admitted in the Nanavati Hospital here. He tested positive for coronavirus earlier this month and is also suffering from several other ailments.

A division bench of Justices S S Shinde and S P Tavade asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the state to inform the court about Rao's health condition and clarify by July 22 whether his family members could be permitted to see him.

Rao's lawyer Sudeep Pasbola told the court that the activist was "almost on his deathbed" and that if he were to die, it should be in the presence of his family.

"His condition is very serious. He hit his head against the hospital bed while he was at the J J hospital and sustained severe injuries. Besides COVID-19, he suffers from several ailments, he is hallucinating and is delirious," Pasbola said.

"His days are numbered and if he is to die, at least let him die in the presence of his family members," the lawyer said while seeking that Rao be granted bail. Pasbola said Rao was in no condition to cause any prejudice to the probe in the case and even the NIA could not dispute this fact.

The bench, however, asked if Rao was in such a critical condition, wouldn't it be counterproductive to move him out of the hospital, and take him to any other place? "Also, if he has COVID-19, then how can he meet his family?" the court asked.

To this, Pasbola said if permitted, Rao's family could take precautions, and see him from a distance. The state's counsel, Deepak Thakare, told the high court that it could arrange for video-conferencing facilities for Rao's family.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, who appeared for the NIA, said as far as he knew, "COVID-19 patients could not be permitted to meet anyone". He also said Rao had been admitted to "one of the best multi-speciality hospitals in the city," and that he was being taken care of in accordance with guidelines of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).

"We are providing the best treatment to him, all his medical needs are being attended to and we are following ICMR guidelines in treating him for COVID-19," Singh said. The court, while seeking details from the NIA and the state, said, "Can his family members see him from a reasonable distance in the hospital?"

Rao earlier filed two pleas in HC through his lawyer. One was to direct the state to produce all his medical reports from the state-run J J Hospital, where he was admitted in May but discharged hurriedly on June 2 and sent back to Taloja jail in neighbouring Navi Mumbai.

The other plea sought bail on health grounds.

The same bench also heard a petition filed by Rao's co-accused in the case, activists Vernon Gonsalves and Anand Teltumbde, seeking that they be tested for COVID-19 as they had been in close contact with Rao in the jail.

The court directed the prison authorities and the NIA to respond to the plea by July 23. "The prayer in the petition is limited. You (authorities) carry out the test for COVID-19 and see. If they are negative then good," the court said.

It noted that they (Gonsalves and Teltumbde) are lodged in the Taloja jail where there have been cases of inmates testing positive for coronavirus. Besides, the hearing on the plea of activist Sudha Bharadwaj, also an accused in the case, seeking bail on health grounds was adjourned after the court found the Byculla women prison superintendent's report on her health to be "illegible".

Her plea will also be heard on July 23.

Bharadwaj has been in jail since September 2018. She applied for bail on health grounds after an inmate at the Byculla prison tested positive for coronavirus last month.

Rao and nine other activists were arrested in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, which was initially probed by the Pune Police and later transferred to the NIA.

New Delhi, Jun 16: Despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi led government’s attempt to downplay the border dispute with China, matters have heated up unprecedentedly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC)- the effective Sino-India border in Eastern Ladakh. 

The country has lost three precious lives – an army officer and two soldiers. The last time blood was spilled on the LAC, before the latest episode, was 45 years ago when the Chinese ambushed an Assam Rifles patrol in Tulung La.

India had lost four soldiers on October 20, 1975 in Tulung La, the last time bullets were fired on the India-China border though both the countries witnessed bitter stand-offs later at Sumdorong Chu valley in 1987, Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014 and Doklam in 2017.

Between 1962 and 1975, the biggest clash between India and China took place in Nathu La pass in 1967 when reports suggest that around 80 Indian soldiers were killed and many more Chinese personnel.

While three soldiers, including a Commanding Officer, were killed in the latest episode in Galwan Valley, the government describes it as a "violent clash" and does not mention opening fire.

New Delhi described the locality where the 1975 incident took place as "well within" its territory only to be rebuffed by Beijing as "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong".

The Ministry of External Affairs had then said that the Chinese had crossed the LAC and ambushed the soldiers while Beijing claimed the Indians entered their territory and did not return despite warnings.

The Indian government maintained that the ambush on the Assam Rifles' patrol in 1975 took place "500 metres south of Tulung" on the border between India and Tibet and "therefore in Indian territory". It said Chinese soldiers "penetrating" Indian territory implied a "change in China's position" on the border question but the Chinese denied this and blamed India for the incident.

The US diplomatic cables quoted an Indian military intelligence officer saying that the Chinese had erected stone walls on the Indian side of Tulung La and from these positions fired several hundred rounds at the Indian patrol.

"Four of the Indians had gone into a leading position while two (the ones who escaped) remained behind. The senior military intelligence officer emphasised that the soldiers on the Indian patrol were from the area and had patrolled that same region many times before," the cable said.

One of the US cables showed that former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger sought details of the October 1975 clash "without approaching the host governments on actual location of October 20 incident". He also wanted to know what ground rules were followed regarding the proximity of LAC by border patrols.

A cable sent from the US mission in India on November 4, 1975 appeared to have doubts about the Chinese account saying it was "highly defensive".

"Given the unsettled situation on the sub-continent, particularly in Bangladesh, both Chinese and Indian authorities have authorised stepped up patrols along the disputed border. The clash may well have ensued when two such patrols unexpectedly encountered each other," it said.

Another cable from China on the same day quoted another October 1974 cable, which spoke about Chinese officials being concerned for long that "some hotheaded person on the PRC (People's Republic of China) might provoke an incident that could lead to renewed Sino-Indian hostilities. It went on to say that this clash suggested that "such concerns and apprehensions are not unwarranted".

According to the United States diplomatic cables, Chinese Foreign Ministry on November 3, 1975 disputed the statement of the MEA spokesperson, who said the incident took place inside Indian territory.

The Chinese had said "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong". In its version of the 1975 incident, they said Indian troops crossed the LAC at 1:30 PM at Tulung Pass on the Eastern Sector and "intruded" into their territory when personnel at the Civilian Checkpost at Chuna in Tibet warned them to withdraw.

Ignoring this, they claimed, Indian soldiers made "continual provocation and even opened fire at the Chinese civilian checkpost personnel, posing a grave threat to the life of the latter. The Chinese civilian checkpost personnel were obliged to fire back in self defence."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson had also said they told the Indian side that they could collect the bodies "anytime" and on October 28, collected the bodies, weapons and ammunition and "signed a receipt".

The US cables from the then USSR suggested that the official media carried reports from Delhi on the October 1975 incident and they cited only Indian accounts of the incident "ridiculing alleged Chinese claims that the Indians crossed the line and opened fire first".