Tharoor seeks apology from UK for atrocities during colonial rule

November 5, 2016

New Delhi, Nov 5: An atonement or an apology by the British Prime Minister or the Queen will "wash away a lot" of the atrocities committed by Britain on India during its colonial rule, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor today said.

tharror"I would prefer instead an active atonement. An apology would go a long way. I am not expecting it today, tomorrow or anytime soon and certainly not during the visit of the new (Britain) Prime Minister (Theresa May)," Tharoor said, referring to May's visit to India next week.

He said an immediate step towards it would be to teach the realities of colonialism to British school children.

The Lok Sabha MP from Thiruvananthapuram was speaking at a book launch 'An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India', which was launched by Vice President Hamid Ansari here.

Tharoor said, in the past German Chancellor and leader of the Social Democratic Party Willy Brandt visited the Warsaw ghetto and apologised to the Jews for the acts of the Nazis.

He also referred to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who in May this year, apologised for the Komagata Maru, a Japanese steamship, that arrived in Vancouver after leaving Hong Kong in early April. On board were 376 passengers, most of whom were Sikh migrants from what was then British India. The ship was not allowed to dock.

"It shows how required it is for a British leader of some significance either a Queen or the PM to simply say sorry. It will wash away a lot. You can't count value the loss of lives during the famine, of the massacres, the rapes, the loot that took place.

"Another thing that could happen would be if the British can make up by teaching their young generation about what happened in the past. After all the beauties of London were built from the resources extracted from the Common Wealth," the Congress leader said.

Speaking about the colonial legacy in Indian laws related to aspects like Freedom of Press and a one-day ban on a leading Hindi channel 'NTDV India', Tharoor said he was not happy about the "unusual punishment" meted out to the channel for its reporting of Pathankot terror attack.

He said all these are "troubling issues for the Indian democracy". Tharoor also hit out at the government for not repealing Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. He had introduced a legislation in Lok Sabha, seeking repealing of the section.

"I find it somewhat ironic that a party of Hindutva, actually claiming to speak for a religion that has 2000 years of recorded tolerance for various kinds of sexual practises...

A religion where there is no recorded instances of persecution or prosecution of such practices, but people speaking for such a party have instead abandoned the option of being true to their own cultural traditions and instead accepted and embraced a Victorian moral code written by T B Macaulay in 1837, enacted in 1861 and abandoned by the British in late 1960s," he said.

Ansari said economic deprivation was one aspect of the colonial rule, but more serious was its impact on the minds of the subjugated and on the totality of their existence.

"The encroachment by the East India Company was piecemeal, and resentment or resistance was per force local. "It often took the shape of peasant uprisings motivated by economic deprivation of severe character often inflicted through physical brutality or ethnic prosecution. It was at times led by local landlords.

"Some of these conflicts involved large numbers but organized military confrontations, of the type with Tipu Sultan of Mysore, were the exception. Nevertheless, these popular resistance movements continued for almost a century," the Vice-President said.

Comments

Hyda
 - 
Saturday, 5 Nov 2016

Tharoor hurts feeling of some who hate Bhagat Singh, Tippu Sultan and other Freedom fighters of India since they fought against forefathers of \Some\"."

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
February 18,2020

New Delhi, Feb 18: Election strategist-turned-politician Prashant Kishor on Tuesday questioned the Nitish Kumar government's development model, even as he sneered at the chief minister for making ideological compromises to stay in an alliance with the BJP.

Kishor, who has been vocal about his opposition to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), said Kumar needs to spell out whether he is with the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi or those who support Nathu Ram Godse.

"Nitish ji has always said that he cannot leave the ideals of Gandhi, JP and Lohiya... At the same time, how can he be with the people who support the ideology of Godse? Both cannot go together. If you want to stay with the BJP, I don't have any problem with it but you cannot be on both sides," he said.

"There has been a lot of discussion between me and Nitish-ji on this. He has his thought process and I have mine. There have been differences between him and me that the ideologies of Godse and Gandhi cannot stand together. As the leader of the party you have to say which side you are on," he added.

In a direct assault on Kumar's model of governance, Kishor said Bihar was the poorest state in 2005 and continues to be so.

"There has been development in Bihar during the last 15 years, but the pace has not been as it should have," he added.

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
June 3,2020

Jun 3: Emphasising that airlines are clearly the safest mode of transportation, IndiGo CEO Ronojoy Dutta on Tuesday said there is no evidence yet of coronavirus infection getting transmitted among passengers onboard an aeroplane.

His comments against the backdrop of instances of some passengers, who had taken flights after resumption of domestic air services on May 25, testing positive for coronavirus.

"Those people had the virus before they got on to the aeroplane. What is noteworthy is that they have done the tracing after that. There is no evidence of transmission onboard there... that is a very encouraging sign on the safety of airline travel," he said during an earnings call.

According to him, airlines are clearly the safest mode of transportation and there is no evidence yet of contamination on an aircraft.

"You can come in contaminated but so far there is no evidence of passing it on to a fellow passenger," he noted.

Amid concerns over the coronavirus pandemic, aviation regulator DGCA has asked airlines to ensure that to the extent possible, middle seat in flights should be kept empty.

In this regard, Dutta said the airline would keep the middle seat empty wherever it can and "where we have to fill the middle seat, we will have the extra protective gown".

To a query about possible hedging of fuel prices, he said it would be a dumb idea and that airlines adjust to ups and downs in fuel prices.

"I can't overemphasise what a dumb idea it will be for an airline to hedge fuel prices. I looked at it from different angles and it is not a good idea... we looked at hedging and we talked about it at the board level and we said no," he noted.

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.