RSS can prepare an army in just 3 days: Mohan Bhagwat

New Delhi, Jun 30: Short video making app TikTok, one of the 59 apps banned by the Central government on Tuesday, has said that it complies with all data privacy and security requirements under the Indian law and has not shared any information of its users in India with any foreign government, including the Chinese Government.

Taking to microblogging site Twitter, Tiktok India posted the statement issued by Nikhil Gandhi, Head of TikTok, India.

"The Government of India has issued an interim order for the blocking of 59 apps, including TikTok and we are in the process of complying with it. We have been invited to meet with concerned government stakeholders for an opportunity to respond and submit clarifications. TikTok continues to comply with all data privacy and security requirements under Indian law and has not shared any information of our users in India with any foreign government, including the Chinese Government," reads the statement.

"Further, if we are requested to in the future we would not do so. We place the highest importance on user privacy and integrity. TikTok has democratized the internet by making it available in 14 Indian languages, with hundreds of millions of users, artists, story-tellers, educators and performers depending on it for their livelihood, many of whom are first-time internet users," the statement further reads.

Amid border tensions with China in Eastern Ladakh, the Centre had on Monday banned 59 mobile apps including Tik Tok, UC Browser and other Chinese apps "prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity and defence" of the country.

A senior official at the IT ministry said the prime reason to block the apps under section 69 A of Information Technology Act is to stop the violation and threat to the security of the state and public order and to plug the data leaks.

"Almost all of them have some preferential Chinese interest. Few are from countries like Singapore. However, the majority have parent companies which are Chinese," the official said.

This move will safeguard the interests of crores of Indian mobile and internet users. This decision is a targeted move to ensure safety and sovereignty of Indian cyberspace, Ministry of Information Technology said.

Mumbai, Apr 14: Activist and scholar Anand Teltumbde was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Tuesday after he surrendered before it in connection with the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.

Teltumbde surrendered at the NIA office at Cumbala Hill in south Mumbai following the Supreme Court's directives.

He was subsequently arrested by the NIA and shall be produced before a court here shortly, an official said.

Earlier, the scholar reached the NIA office in the afternoon along with his wife Rama Teltumbde and brother-in- law and Dalit leader Prakash Ambedkar.

Anand Teltumbde is the grandson-in-law of Dalit icon Dr B R Ambedkar, whose 129th birth anniversary is being observed on Tuesday.

Civil rights activist Gautam Navlakha, a co-accused in the case, also surrendered before the NIA in Delhi. His anticipatory bail plea was also rejected by the apex court.

According to the official, Navlakha will be produced before the court in Mumbai through video conference.

The Supreme Court on March 17 this year rejected the pre-arrest bail pleas of Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha, and directed them to surrender before the investigating agency.

Teltumbde, Navlakha and nine other civil liberties activists have been booked under the stringent provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for having alleged Maoist links and conspiring the overthrow the government.

The apex court while rejecting Teltumbde and Navlakha's bail pleas on March 17, directed them to surrender before the prosecuting agency withing a period of three weeks.

The duo later sought extension of the time.

On April 9, the Supreme Court extended the time by one week by way of last chance.

The activists were booked initially by Pune Police following violence that erupted at Koregaon-Bhima there.

According to police, the activists made inflammatory speeches and provocative statements at the Elgar Parishad meet held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which triggered violence the next day.

The police also said these activists were active members of banned Maoist groups.

The case was later transferred to NIA. Teltumbde and Navlakha were given interim protection by the Bombay High Court while their pre-arrest bail pleas were being heard.

After the high court rejected their applications, the duo approached the Supreme Court.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.