People support Modi because they don't have jobs: Rahul

Agencies
August 26, 2018

London, Aug 26: Rahul Gandhi on Saturday said that people support populist leaders like US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi because they are angry over not having jobs, as the Congress president stepped up his attack on the BJP and the RSS.

Interacting with Indian Journalists' Association here, Rahul said that instead of solving the problem, these leaders ride on that anger and damage the country.

"People support populist leaders like Mr Trump and Mr Modi because they are angry that they don't have a job. Instead of solving this problem these leaders ride on that anger. They damage the country by this," he said.

On Friday, Rahul said India was facing a "full-blown crisis" of unemployment and the government was refusing to admit it.

During an interaction programme at the prestigious London School of Economics here, he had said that where China creates 50,000 jobs a day, only 450 jobs are created in a day in India. This is a catastrophe.

Rahul again maintained that "there is a lot of similarity between the Muslim Brotherhood and the RSS. They use democratic processes to capture power".

The Muslim Brotherhood is the oldest political Islamist group in the Arab world. It is banned and declared as a terrorist organisation by the governments of several countries.

BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra said in New Delhi that the likes of President Ram Nath Kovind, Modi and former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who died last week, have an RSS background and Rahul's comparison of the organisation with an Islamist outfit is "unforgivable".

He demanded an immediate apology from the Congress president for likening the choice of Indians in an election with an organisation which, the BJP leader said, is declared a terror outfit in many countries.

On Vijay Mallya, Rahul said that Indian prisons are "pretty decent" while commenting on his ongoing extradition case.

"Indian prisons are pretty decent as far as Mr Mallya is concerned," he said.

In July, Mallya appeared before the Westminster Magistrates' Court in London where both defence and prosecution presented clarifications on Barrack 12 at Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai, where Mallya is to be held post-extradition.

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 1,2020

New Delhi, Jan 1: Newly-appointed Chief of the Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat on Wednesday said the armed forces stay away from politics and work as per the directives of the government of the day, remarks that come amid allegations that the forces were being politicised.

Gen Rawat also said that his focus as CDS will be to integrate the efforts of the three services and to work as a team.

"We keep ourselves away from politics. We act according to the directives of the government of the day," he said.

Gen Rawat said his focus will be to ensure best and optimal use of resources allocated to the three services.

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.
Agencies
May 26,2020

New Delhi, May 26: The in-fighting among the residents of housing societies over feeding of stray dogs is nowhere near ending, with yet another attack on a pregnant Russian woman again in the national capital region this time in Noida.

The Russian woman residing in a condominium in Noida's Sector 71 was allegedly attacked by two men for feeding foundling canines inside the complex.

"We have initiated an inquiry and a case has been registered against the men for voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation," Amit Kumar Singh, Station House Officer of Phase 3 police station told IANS.

The police said that the victim is married to an Indian man and they live in that society.

The issue was raked up on social media by one of the residents of the society. Her post had even solicited a response and help from the Noida Police Commissioner.

Kaveri Rana Bharadwaj wrote, "Mob led by Vikas Sharma, and Mr. Chauhan beat up a pregnant woman in Jagriti Apartment, Sector 71 Noida. Request you to immediately arrest these men and provide security to the scared woman!"

When contacted, a member of the Resident Welfare Association (RWA) of the society said that the allegations levied by her are false and that he, along with a handful of other people, had only asked her not to feed the dogs.

Vikas Sharma divulged, "The woman was called at the society gate by the members of the RWA. When she was asked not to feed the street dogs, she became aggressive, started fighting with the residents of the society and even pushed a 70-year-old woman. The complaint that she registered against us is false. We did not even touch her."

He added that there are 70-80 street dogs in the society who have lately become extremely aggressive. "The lady was asked not to feed them as people feared stepping out of their houses and getting bitten."

In another incident on Tuesday, a Greater Noida man beat up a Chinese woman for allegedly fostering a stray dog which bit his canine.

Greater Noida District Commissioner of Police Rajesh Kumar Singh told IANS that the man named Amar Pratap Singh of ATS Paradiso misbehaved with the woman after his dog was bit by another dog who she used to feed every day.

The incident happened in the wee hours of the day when the accused took his dog out for a walk. "After his dog was bitten, in a fit of rage, he misbehaved with the Chinese woman." A Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) has been registered and no arrests have been made so far, the police 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.