Modi govt issuing 'look out notice' for those defending civil liberties: Kibal Sibal

New Delhi, Feb 24: They hail from vastly different backgrounds — Donald Trump is the son of a property tycoon while Narendra Modi is a descendant of a poor tea-seller.

Yet the two teetotallers, loved by right-wing nationalists in their home countries, share striking similarities that have seen them forge a close personal bond, analysts say.

Ahead of the American leader's first official visit to India, which begins in Modi's home state of Gujarat on Monday, the world's biggest democracy has gone out of its way to showcase the chemistry between them.

In Gujarat's capital Ahmedabad, large billboards with the words "two dynamic personalities, one momentous occasion" and "two strong nations, one great friendship" have gone up across the city.

"There's a lot that Trump and Modi share in common, and not surprisingly these convergences have translated into a warm chemistry between the two," Michael Kugelman of the Washington-based Wilson Center said.

"Personality politics are a major part of international diplomacy today. The idea of closed-door dialogue between top leaders has often taken a backseat to very public and spectacle-laden summitry."

Since assuming the top political office in their respective countries — Modi in 2014 and Trump in 2017 — the two men have been regularly compared to each other.

Trump, 73, and Modi, 69, both command crowds of adoring flag-waving supporters at rallies. A virtual cult of personality has emerged around them, with their faces and names at the centre of their political parties' campaigns.

A focus of Trump's administration has been his crackdown on migrants, including a travel ban that affects several Muslim-majority nations, among others, while critics charge that Modi has sought to differentiate Muslims from other immigrants through a contentious citizenship law that has sparked protests.

Both promote their countries' nationalist and trade protectionist movements — Trump with his "America First" clarion call and Modi with his "Make in India" mantra.

And while they head the world's largest democracies, critics have described the pair as part of a global club of strongmen that includes Russia's Vladimir Putin and Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro.

"There are many qualities that Trump and Modi share — a love for political grandstanding and an unshakable conviction that they can achieve the best solutions or deals," former Indian diplomat Rakesh Sood said.

Modi and Trump have sought to use their friendship to forge closer bonds between the two nations, even as they grapple with ongoing tensions over trade and defence.

Despite sharing many similarities in style and substance, analysts say there are some notable differences between the pair.

Modi is an insider who rose through the ranks of the Bharatiya Janata Party after starting out as a cadre in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

Trump is a businessman and a political outsider who has in some sense taken over the Republican Party.

"Modi is a more conventional leader than is Trump in that he hasn't sought to revolutionise the office he holds in the way that Trump has," said Kugelman, a longtime observer of South Asian politics.

He added that genuine personal connections between leaders of both countries have helped to grow the partnership.

"George Bush and Manmohan Singh, Barack Obama and Singh, Obama and Modi, now Modi and Trump — there has been a strong chemistry in all these pairings that has clearly helped the relationship move forward," he added.

Trump has also stood by the Indian leader during controversial decisions, including his revocation of autonomy for Kashmir and his order for jets to enter Pakistani territory following a suicide bombing.

Analysts said the leaders would use the visit to bolster their image with voters.

A mega "Namaste Trump" rally in Ahmedabad on Monday will be modelled after the "Howdy, Modi" Houston extravaganza last year when the Indian leader visited the US and the two leaders appeared before tens of thousands of Indian-Americans at a football stadium.

"The success of this visit... will have a positive impact on his (Trump's) re-election campaign and the people of Indian origin who are voters in the US — a majority of them are from Gujarat," former Indian diplomat Surendra Kumar said.

"On the Indian side, the fact that Prime Minister Modi... (shares) such warmth, bonhomie and informality with the most powerful man on Earth adds to his stature... as well as with hardcore supporters."

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".

Mumbai, Mar 7: Maharashtra Chief Minister and Shiv Sena president Uddhav Thackeray visited Ayodhya on Saturday to commemorate 100 days in office and pledged Rs 1 crore towards the building of the Ram Temple.

Taking a dig at BJP, Uddhav said his party had separated from its erstwhile ally but not Hindutva.

Recollecting the contribution of his father Balasaheb Thackeray, uddhav said he was forced to skip the Sarayu River 'aarti' due to Coronavirus fears but he would continue visiting Ayodhya.

Earlier in the day, the Sena, which heads the tripartite dispensation in the state, said there was no change in its ideology.

Launching a veiled attack on BJP, an editorial in the Sena mouthpiece 'Saamana' also said that Lord Ram and Hindutva is not the sole property of any single political party.

The Sena also said the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government — which also comprises the NCP and the Congress — has completed 100 days, much to the chagrin of those who were claiming that the new dispensation will not survive more than 100 hours.

“Those whose government lasted for 80 hours were claiming that the Thackeray regime will not last for even 100 hours. But this MVA government not only thrived but has instilled trust in the minds of people during this period with its performance,” the editorial said.

The Sena was apparently referring to the second inning of the erstwhile Devendra Fadnavis government which lasted for only 80 hours in November last year.

"Hence, CM Thackeray's visit to Ayodhya has to be welcomed as he is offering the flowers of works (done by the government) at the feet of Lord Shriram," it said.

The Sena said Thackeray's visit to the temple town is out of devotion for Lord Shriram. "The government in Maharashtra comprising three ideologically different parties is working as per Constitution and Thackeray is leading such government," it said.

The edit said on this background various questions were raised over Thackeray's visit to Ayodhya by his political opponents. "The government maybe backed by anyone, but Uddhav Thackeray and the Shiv Sena remain the same from within and outside. There is no change in the ideology. Lord Shriram and Hindutva is not the property of any single party," it stated.

Referring to senior RSS leader Suresh 'Bhaiyyaji' Joshi's remark that the Hindu community is not synonymous with the BJP and that opposing the BJP does not amount to opposing Hindus, the Sena said similarly Ayodhya belongs to all.

"The political and cultural battle in Ayodhya is now over. The Supreme Court cannot be thanked enough for this (for its verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute case that allowed construction of the Ram temple)," it said.

Hailing the Supreme Court's November, 2019 verdict, the Sena said the country had to fight a big battle to prove that Ayodhya belonged to Lord Shriram.

"In that battle, several (people) were unmasked. But only (late) Shiv Sena president Balasaheb Thackeray stood behind the Ayodhya (temple) campaigners like a mountain," it said.

Bal Thackeray created trust among Hindus from across the world about the creation of the temple, the Sena said. The party further said late Thackeray's assertion that he was proud if the Babri mosque was razed by Sena workers and that the temple of Lord Ram would come up in Ayodhya was akin to the thunder of "thousands of lightnings" in the sky.

"The Hindu culture got lit up in the glow of that lightning. The resplendent rays showed the path of power to the Hindu community. Hence, no one can deny the contribution of the 'Hinduhridaysamrat' (Bal Thackeray) as good as that of Lord Shriram, in creating the current political order in the country," the Sena said.

"We have experienced several times that Balasaheb lives in the mind of Ayodhya. Now Uddhav Thackeray himself is going there with the same faith. He had gone there when not in power. He is going there now after becoming chief minister with the same humility. Lord Shriram is of everyone," the Sena said.

The party said Maharashtra is being run on the path shown by Lord Shriram and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. "A Ram Rajya entails fulfilling promises made to the people. This is precisely what Mahatma Gandhi wanted, and the government following this ideology is in place in Maharashtra. It will continue work on that line. Ultimately, Lord Shriram is there to support it," the Sena said.

Thackeray completed 100 days in the office on Friday. He had assumed office as the chief minister of the Sena-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government on November 28 last year, after the Sena joined hands with the NCP and the Congress.

Senior Sena leader Sanjay Raut had said that Thackeray will not take part in the 'aarti' programme on the banks of river Sarayu in the temple town.