Cong demands PM Modi’s apology for ‘insulting’ Bengaluru

New Delhi, Feb 5: Kapil Baisala who opened fired at the Shaheen Bagh protest site last week is a member of the Aam Aadmi Party, police said on Tuesday, sparking a war of words between the BJP and the AAP.

While the BJP accused Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal of "playing" with the security of the country, the AAP hit back, stating the saffron party was indulging "dirty politics".

Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime Branch) Rajesh Deo said that Baisala and his father joined the AAP in early 2019.

Baisala's family, however, refuted the police's claim.

Kapil Baisala's uncle Fatesh Singh told PTI, "I have no idea where these photographs are circulating from. My nephew Kapil had no association with any political party nor does any other member from the family. My brother, Gaje Singh, (Baisala's father) fought assembly elections in 2008 on a Bahujan Samaj Party ticket and lost. After that no one from our family had any links with any political party."

Singh added that Baisala also doesn't have friends associated with the AAP or any other political party.

Gaje had also contested the 2012 civic body polls from the BSP, the police said.

The police officer said they seized Baisala's mobile phone and retrieved WhatsApp data.

On Saturday, Baisala fired two rounds in air at Shaheen Bagh. According to eyewitnesses, the man shouted "Hindu Rashtra Zindabad" and fired two rounds.

He was overpowered by the police and later arrested.

In the pictures, it was seen that he and his father joined the party in the presence of Atishi Marlena, Sanjay Singh and other leaders, sources said.

The police said on Thursday, Baisala, along with his friend Sarthak Larolla, went to Shaheen Bagh from his village on a bike.

Through CCTV footage, it was found they took the DND flyover, Maharani Bagh, Sarai Jullena and reached Holy Family hospital, a senior police officer said.

"Baisala was not comfortable on the bike as he had hidden the pistol near his waist. They entered the hospital's parking where he adjusted the pistol, used the washroom and headed towards Shaheen Bagh," the senior official added.

When they reached the protest site, Larolla left the spot with the motorcycle and Baisala's mobile phone. Later, Baisala fired two rounds in the air and was apprehended. The weapon was recovered from near the spot, the police said.

Larolla joined the investigation and the mobile phone was seized from his residence.

Baisala has been remanded to police remand for two days.

He had bought the pistol around seven years ago for his brother's marriage. The source of the weapon from where he procured it is yet to identified, police said.

The sources said Baisala was previously also involved in firing incident but was never caught nor was a case registered against him.

Hitting out at the AAP, BJP president J P Nadda accused Kejriwal of playing with the security of the country and said that the people will give the party a befitting reply.

"I want to make clear to Kejriwal that this country is bigger than any election, any government, and the country will not forgive those who play with its security. The people of Delhi will give a befitting reply," Nadda tweeted.

Senior AAP leader Sanjay Singh asked on whose directions was the Delhi Police accusing his party.

"Before the police revealed it (Baisala being an AAP member), how did BJP's Delhi president Manoj Tiwari come to know about it," Singh asked and accused the police of maligning the party.

Jan 23: Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan called on Wednesday for the United Nations to help mediate between nuclear armed India and Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir.

"This is a potential flashpoint," Khan said during a media briefing at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, adding that it was time for the "international institutions ... specifically set up to stop this" to "come into action".

The Indian government in August revoked the constitutional autonomy of Indian-administered Kashmir, splitting the Muslim-majority region into two federal territories in a bid to integrate it fully with the rest of the country.

Kashmir is claimed in full by both India and Pakistan. The two countries have gone to war twice over it, and both rule parts of it. India's portion has been plagued by separatist violence since the late 1980s.

Khan said his biggest fear was how New Delhi would respond to ongoing protests in India over a citizenship law that many feel targets Muslims.

"We're not close to a conflict right now ... What if the protests get worse in India, and to distract attention from that, what if ..."

The prime minister said he had discussed the prospect of war between his country and India in a Tuesday meeting with US President Donald Trump. Trump later said he had offered to help mediate between the two countries.

Khan said Pakistan and the United States were closer in their approach to the Taliban armed rebellion in Afghanistan than they had been for many years. He said he had never seen a military solution to that conflict.

"Finally the position of the US is there should be negotiations and a peace plan."

In a separate on-stage conversation later on Wednesday, Khan said he had told Trump in their meeting that a war with Iran would be "a disaster for the world". Trump had not responded, Khan said.

Khan made some of his most straightforward comments when asked why Pakistan has been muted in defence of Uighurs in China.

China has been widely condemned for setting up complexes in remote Xinjiang province that Beijing describes as "vocational training centres" to stamp out ""extremism and give people new skills.

The United Nations says at least one million ethnic Uighurs and other Muslims have been detained.

When pressed on China's policies, Khan said Pakistan's relations with Beijing were too important for him to speak out publicly.

"China has helped us when we were at rock bottom. We are really grateful to the Chinese government, so we have decided that any issues we have had with China we will handle privately."

Jun 9: Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants all 1.3 billion Indians to be “vocal for local” — meaning, to not just use domestically made products but also to promote them. As an overseas citizen living in Hong Kong, I’m doing my bit by very vocally demanding Indian mangoes on every trip to the grocery. But half the summer is gone, and not a single slice so far.

My loss is due to India’s COVID-19 lockdown, which has severely pinched logistics, a perennial challenge in the huge, infrastructure-starved country. But more worrying than the disruption is the fruity political response to it. Rather than being a wake-up call for fixing supply chains, the pandemic seems to be putting India on an isolationist course. Why?

Granted that the liberal view that trade is good and autarky bad isn’t exactly fashionable anywhere right now. What makes India’s lurch troublesome is that the pace and direction of economic nationalism may be set by domestic business interests. The Indian liberals, many of whom are Western-trained academics, authors and — at least until a few years ago — policy makers, want a more competitive economy. They will be powerless to prevent the slide.

Modi’s call for a self-reliant India has been echoed by Home Minister Amit Shah, the cabinet’s unofficial No. 2, in a television interview. If Indians don’t buy foreign-made goods, the economy will see a jump, he said. The strategy — although it’s too nebulous yet to call it that — has a geopolitical element. A military standoff with China is under way, apparently triggered by India’s completion of a road and bridge near the common border in the tense Himalayan region of Ladakh. It’s very expensive to fight even a limited war there. With India’s economy flattened by COVID, New Delhi may be looking for ways to restore the status quo and send Beijing a signal.

Economic boycotts, such as Chinese consumers’ rejection of Japanese goods over territorial disputes in the East China Sea, are well understood as statecraft. In these times, it’s not even necessary to name an enemy. An undercurrent of popular anger against China, the source of both the virus and India’s biggest bilateral trade deficit, is supposed to do the job. But is it ever that easy?

A hastily introduced policy to stock only local goods in police and paramilitary canteens became a farcical exercise after the list of banned items ended up including products by the local units of Colgate-Palmolive Co., Nestle SA, and Unilever NV, which have had significant Indian operations for between 60 and 90 years, as well as Dabur India Ltd., a New Delhi-based maker of Ayurveda brands. The since-withdrawn list demonstrates the practical difficulty of bureaucrats trying to find things in a globalized world that are 100% indigenous.

Free-trade champions fret that the prime minister, whom they saw as being on their side six years ago, is acting against their advice to dismantle statist controls on land, labor and capital to help make the country more competitive. Engage with the world more, not less, they caution. But Modi also has to satisfy the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the umbrella Hindu organisation that gets him votes. Its backbone of small traders, builders and businessmen — the RSS admits only men — was losing patience with the anemic economy even before the pandemic. Now, they’re in deep trouble, because India’s broken financial system won’t deliver even state-guaranteed loans to them.

The U.S.-China tensions — over trade, intellectual property, COVID responsibility and Hong Kong’s autonomy — offer a perfect backdrop. A dire domestic economy and trouble at the border provide the foreground. Big business will dial economic nationalism up and down to hit a trifecta of goals: Block competition from the People's Republic; make Western rivals fall in line and do joint ventures; and tap deep overseas capital markets. The first goal is being achieved with newly placed restrictions on investment from any country that shares a land border with India. The second aim is to be realized by corporate lobbying to influence India's whimsical economic policies. As for the third objective, with the regulatory environment becoming tougher for U.S.-listed Chinese companies like Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., an opportunity may open up for Indian firms.

All this may bring India Shenzhen-style enclaves of manufacturing and trade, but it will concentrate economic power in fewer hands, something that worries liberals. They’re moved by the suffering of India’s low-wage workers, who have borne the brunt of the COVID shutdown. But when their vision of a more just society and fairer income distribution prompts them to make common cause with the ideological Left, they’re quickly repelled by the Marxist voodoo that all cash, property, bonds and real estate held by citizens or within the nation “must be treated as national resources available during this crisis.” Who will invest in a country that does that instead of just printing money?

At the same time, when liberals look to the business class, they see a sudden swelling of support for ideas like a universal basic income. They wonder if this isn’t a ploy by industry to outsource part of the cost of labor to the taxpayer. Slogans like Modi’s vocal-for-local stir the pot and thicken the confusion. The value-conscious Indian consumer couldn’t give two hoots for calls to buy Indian, but large firms will know how to exploit economic nationalism. One day soon, I’ll get my mangoes — from them.