Pak expels Indian envoy; downgrades diplomatic ties

Agencies
August 8, 2019

Islamabad, Aug 8: Pakistan on Wednesday expelled Indian High Commissioner Ajay Bisaria, minutes after it decided to downgrade the diplomatic ties with India over what it called New Delhi's "unilateral and illegal" move to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.

This was announced after Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan chaired a crucial meeting of the National Security Committee (NSC), attended by top civil and military leadership, during which it was also decided to suspend the bilateral trade and review the "bilateral arrangements".

"Our ambassadors will no longer be in New Delhi and their counterparts here will also be sent back," Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said in televised comments soon after the NSC meeting.

Later, the Foreign Office in a statement said that "Pursuant to the decision of the National Security Committee today, the Government of India has been told to withdraw its High Commissioner to Pakistan."

It, however, did not give any time line for India to pull back its envoy.

"The Indian Government has also been informed that Pakistan will not be sending its High Commissioner-designate to India," the statement said.

Pakistan's new High Commissioner Moin-ul-Haq was expected to leave for India this month to take up his responsibilities.

India on Monday revoked Article 370 of the Constitution to withdraw the special status given to Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcated the state into two Union Territories -- Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

A statement issued after the NSC meeting read that the Committee discussed situation "arising out of unilateral and illegal actions" by the Indian government, situation inside Jammu and Kashmir and along the Line of Control.

The Committee decided "downgrading of diplomatic relations with India" and "suspension of bilateral trade with India," the statement said.

Pakistan will also take the matter (abolition of the Article 370 by India) to the United Nations, including the Security Council, the statement said.

India has said Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and the issue is strictly internal to the country.

The statement said that the country will observe this Independence Day on August 14 in solidarity with Kashmiris. "August 15 will be observed as Black Day," it added.

Prime Minister Khan also directed that all diplomatic channels be activated to highlight the alleged human rights violations in the Valley. He directed the military to continue vigilance, the statement said.

The Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, Interior Minister, Advisor on finance, Kashmir Affairs Minister as well as Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman, three services chiefs, ISI chief, and other top officials attended the meeting.

The NSC met after the meeting of top military generals and and a rare joint session of parliament on the Kashmir issue on Tuesday. It was the second meeting of Pakistan's top decision making body this week.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Khan convened the NSC meeting to discuss issues pertaining to national security in the wake of developments in the region. The NSC is the highest forum of civil and military top leadership to come together and discuss important matters of national security.

On Tuesday, Khan expressed apprehension that Pulwama-like attacks can follow the revocation of the special status for Jammu and Kashmir, which could trigger a conventional war between Pakistan and India.

"This will be a war that no one will win and the implications will be global," he warned while addressing a rare joint sitting of Parliament that was convened to discuss the Kashmir situation.

Khan said that his government would approach the world leaders and apprise them of situation in Kashmir. "We will fight it at every forum including the UN Security Council," he said, adding that Pakistan also plans to take the matter to the International Court of Justice.

Speaking in Parliament, Foreign Minister Qureshi said on Wednesday that India has only harmed itself by revoking the special status of Kashmir.

"History will prove that this action of India will badly impact its union," he said.

Qureshi said all bilateral agreements with India would be reviewed by a special committee already setup by Prime Minister Khan to suggest measures against Indian actions.

The foreign minister said that he might dash to China for consultations over the issue.

Pakistan lawmakers unanimously passed a resolution condemning "Indian action in Kashmir and pledging support for Kashmiris."

The resolution was adopted by the joint session of parliament after the lawmakers discussed the situation in Kashmir for two days.

The resolution reiterated the "strong conviction of Pakistan that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute would be resolved only through dialogue and diplomacy and in accordance with international law."

India has not been engaging with Pakistan since an attack on the Air Force base at Pathankot in January of 2016 by Pakistan-based terrorists, maintaining that talks and terror cannot go together.

Early this year, tensions flared up between India and Pakistan after a suicide bomber of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Muhammed (JeM) killed 40 CRPF personnel in Kashmir's Pulwama district.

Amid mounting outrage, the Indian Air Force carried out a counter-terror operation, hitting the biggest JeM training camp in Balakot, deep inside Pakistan on February 26.

The next day, Pakistan Air Force retaliated and downed a MiG-21 in an aerial combat and captured Indian pilot, who was handed over to India on March 1.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 10,2020

Dubai, Jan 10: Iran denied on Thursday that a Ukrainian airliner that crashed near Tehran had been hit by a missile, Iranian government spokesman Ali Rabiei said in a statement, according to state TV.

"All these reports are a psychological warfare against Iran. All those countries whose citizens were aboard the plane can send representatives and we urge Boeing to send its representative to join the process of investigating the black box".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 8,2020

New Delhi, Jul 8: India has reported a spike of 22,752 COVID-19 cases in the last 24 hours, taking the country's coronavirus tally to 7,42,417 on Wednesday, informed the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Out of the total cases reported, 4,56,830 patients have been cured/discharged from the disease while one patient has been migrated, the Health Ministry informed.

It added that there are 2,64,944 active cases in the country.

482 deaths reported in the last 24 hours due to COVID-19 in the country, taking India's death toll to 20,642.

According to the Union Health Ministry, Maharashtra continues to be the worst affected state reporting 2,17,121 coronavirus cases and 9,250 fatalities.

Tamil Nadu -- the second worst-affected state from COVID-19 -- has a total of 1,18,594 cases and 1,636 deaths due to coronavirus.

While Delhi has a total of 1,02,831 COVID-19 cases including 3,165 deaths.

The Indian Council of Medical Research on Wednesday informed that a total of 1,04,73,771 samples tested for COVID-19 up to July 7. Of these, 2,62,679 samples were tested on Tuesday.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.