Lynching incidents shouldn't be politicised or given communal colour: Naqvi

New Delhi, Jan 8: Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) President Aishe Ghosh has filed a complaint over the violence that took place at the varsity campus on Sunday.

"I am filing this complaint for the incident in which a mob conspired and acted with common intention to assault, intimidate and attempt to murder me, and request you to register an FIR and apprehend culprits at the earliest," the complaint read.

She said that on January 5, in the afternoon, she received information from students in the campus that some students affiliated to ABVP along with other unidentified men and women had gathered with weapons like rods, sledgehammers and lathis near Ganga Bus Stop.

"I along with Nikhil Mathew (MA Labour Studies) who was also present there, were surrounded by a group of persons of that mob most of whom were wearing masks. The mob of 20-30 persons dragged me behind a car standing near the 24*7 and surrounded me and despite my pleading did not let me go and attacked me with rods while I had fallen down. I remember that one of the people was of medium height wearing a brownish-red sweatshirt with UCLA written on it. I saw his face as he was facing me and did not have a mask on and can identify him if I see him," Ghosh wrote in her complaint.

"I was attacked by the above-mentioned persons collectively and was hit on the head multiple times with iron rods. I fell to the ground and my head started bleeding, and some of them kicked me and hit me with the rod on my hand and rest of the body including my head, chest and back."

"I am attaching with this complaint a copy of the MLC which details my injuries. Nikhil Mathew tried to save me but was also hit with an iron hammer and other weapons on his head and arms. The intention of the group of men and their acts was definitely to murder me and other persons associated with me," she said.

Washington, May 30: President Donald Trump said Friday he would strip several of Hong Kong's special privileges with the United States and bar some Chinese students from US universities in anger over Beijing's bid to exert control in the financial hub.

In a day of concerted action, the United States and Britain also raised alarm at the UN Security Council over a controversial new security law for Hong Kong, angering Beijing which said the issue had no place at the world body.

In a White House appearance that Trump had teased for a day, the US president attacked China over its treatment of the former British colony, saying it was "diminishing the city's longstanding and proud status."

"This is a tragedy for the people of Hong Kong, the people of China and indeed the people of the world," Trump said.

Trump also said he was terminating the US relationship with the World Health Organization, which he has accused of pro-China bias in its management of the coronavirus crisis.

But Trump was light on specifics and notably avoided personal criticism of President Xi Jinping, with whom he has boasted of having a friendship even as the two powers feud over a rising range of issues.

"I am directing my administration to begin the process of eliminating policy that gives Hong Kong different and special treatment," Trump said.

"This will affect the full range of agreements, from our extradition treaty to our export controls on dual-use technologies and more, with few exceptions," he said.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday informed Congress that the Trump administration would no longer consider Hong Kong to be separate under US law, but it was up to Trump to spell out the consequences.

China this week pressed ahead on a law that would ban subversion and other perceived offenses against its rule in Hong Kong, which was rocked by months of massive pro-democracy protests last year.

US restricts students

In one move that could have long-reaching consequences, Trump issued an order to ban graduate students from US universities who are connected to China's military.

"For years, the government of China has conducted elicit espionage to steal our industrial secrets, of which there are many," Trump said.

Hawkish Republicans have been clamoring to kick out Chinese students enrolled in sensitive fields. The FBI in February said it was investigating 1,000 cases of Chinese economic espionage and technological theft.

But any move to deter students is unwelcome for US universities, which rely increasingly on tuition from foreigners and have already been hit hard by the COVID-19 shutdown.

China has been the top source of foreign students to the United States for the past decade with nearly 370,000 Chinese at US universities, although Trump's order will not directly affect undergraduates.

Critics say Trump has been eager to fan outrage about China to deflect attention from his own handling of the coronavirus pandemic that has killed more than 100,000 people in the United States, the highest number of deaths of any country.

Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, called Trump's announcement "just pathetic."

Eliot Engel, a Democrat who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee, noted that Trump treaded lightly on Hong Kong during last year's protests as he sought a trade deal with Xi.

"Now, the president wants to shift the blame for his failures onto China, so he's doing the right thing for the wrong reason," Engel said.

Trump's order could also trigger retaliation. China in March expelled US journalists after the Trump administration tightened visa rules for staff at Chinese state media.

Clash at UN

The United States and Britain earlier in the day urged China to reconsider the Hong Kong law during talks at the UN Security Council, where China wields a veto -- making any formal session, let alone action against Beijing, impossible.

The Western allies raised Hong Kong in an informal, closed-door videoconference where China cannot block the agenda.

They said China was violating an international commitment as the 1984 handover agreement with Britain, in which Beijing promised to maintain the financial hub's separate system until at least 2047, was registered with the United Nations.

"The United States is resolute, and calls upon all UN members states to join us in demanding that the PRC immediately reverse course and honor its international legal commitments to this institution and to the Hong Kong people," said US Ambassador Kelly Craft, referring to the People's Republic of China.  

China demanded that the United States and Britain "immediately stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs," saying the law did not fall under the Security Council's mandate.

"Any attempt to use Hong Kong to interfere in China's internal matters is doomed to fail," warned a statement from China's UN mission.

"There was no consensus, no formal discussion in the Security Council, and the US and the UK's move came to nothing," it said.

Jan 13: For the first time in years, the government of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is playing defense. Protests have sprung up across the country against an amendment to India’s laws — which came into effect on Friday — that makes it easier for members of some religions to become citizens of India. The government claims this is simply an attempt to protect religious minorities in the Muslim-majority countries that border India; but protesters see it as the first step toward a formal repudiation of India’s constitutionally guaranteed secularism — and one that must be resisted.

Modi was re-elected prime minister last year with an enhanced majority; his hold over the country’s politics is absolute. The formal opposition is weak, discredited and disorganized. Yet, somehow, the anti-Citizenship Act protests have taken hold. No political party is behind them; they are generally arranged by student unions, neighborhood associations and the like.

Yet this aspect of their character is precisely what will worry Modi and his right-hand man, Home Minister Amit Shah. They know how to mock and delegitimize opposition parties with ruthless efficiency. Yet creating a narrative that paints large, flag-waving crowds as traitors is not quite that easy.

For that is how these protests look: large groups of young people, many carrying witty signs and the national flag. They meet and read the preamble to India’s Constitution, into which the promise of secularism was written in the 1970’s.

They carry photographs of the Constitution’s drafter, the Columbia University-trained economist and lawyer B. R. Ambedkar. These are not the mobs the government wanted. They hoped for angry Muslims rampaging through the streets of India’s cities, whom they could point to and say: “See? We must protect you from them.” But, in spite of sometimes brutal repression, the protests have largely been nonviolent.

One, in Shaheen Bagh in a Muslim-dominated sector of New Delhi, began simply as a set of local women in a square, armed with hot tea and blankets against the chill Delhi winter. It has now become the focal point of a very different sort of resistance than what the government expected. Nothing could cure the delusions of India’s Hindu middle class, trained to see India’s Muslims as dangerous threats, as effectively as a group of otherwise clearly apolitical women sipping sweet tea and sharing their fears and food with anyone who will listen.

Modi was re-elected less than a year ago; what could have changed in India since then? Not much, I suspect, in most places that voted for him and his party — particularly the vast rural hinterland of northern India. But urban India was also possibly never quite as content as electoral results suggested. India’s growth dipped below 5% in recent quarters; demand has crashed, and uncertainty about the future is widespread. Worse, the government’s response to the protests was clearly ill-judged. University campuses were attacked, in one case by the police and later by masked men almost certainly connected to the ruling party.

Protesters were harassed and detained with little cause. The courts seemed uninterested. And, slowly, anger began to grow on social media — not just on Twitter, but also on Instagram, previously the preserve of pretty bowls of salad. Instagram is the one social medium over which Modi’s party does not have a stranglehold; and it is where these protests, with their photogenic signs and flags, have found a natural home. As a result, people across urban India who would never previously have gone to a demonstration or a political rally have been slowly politicized.

India is, in fact, becoming more like a normal democracy. “Normal,” that is, for the 2020’s. Liberal democracies across the world are politically divided, often between more liberal urban centers and coasts, and angrier, “left-behind” hinterlands. Modi’s political secret was that he was that rare populist who could unite both the hopeful cities and the resentful countryside. Yet this once magic formula seems to have become ineffective. Five of India’s six largest cities are not ruled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in any case — the financial hub of Mumbai changed hands recently. The BJP has set its sights on winning state elections in Delhi in a few weeks. Which way the capital’s voters will go is uncertain. But that itself is revealing — last year, Modi swept all seven parliamentary seats in Delhi.

In the end, the Citizenship Amendment Act is now law, the BJP might manage to win Delhi, and the protests might die down as the days get unmanageably hot and state repression increases. But urban India has put Modi on notice. His days of being India’s unifier are over: From now on, like all the other populists, he will have to keep one eye on the streets of his country’s cities.