Tokyo christens futuristic 2020 Olympic mascots

New Delhi, May 3: In a startling revelation, India speedster Mohammed Shami has claimed that he thought of committing suicide thrice while battling personal issues a few years ago, forcing his family to keep a watch over him at all times.

He said his family members feared he "might jump" from their 24th floor apartment.

Shami, one of India's leading bowlers in recent years, opened up on his personal and professional life during an Instagram chat with teammate and limited overs squads' vice-captain Rohit Sharma.

"I think if my family had not supported me back then I would have lost my cricket. I thought of committing suicide three times during that period due to severe stress and personal problems," Shami revealed during the session on Saturday.

Now one of the mainstays of Indian bowling attack across formats, the 29-year-old was struggling to focus on his cricket, then.

"I was not thinking about cricket at all. We were living on the 24th floor. They (family) were scared I might jump from the balcony. My brother supported me a lot.

"My 2-3 friends used to stay with me for 24 hours. My parents asked me to focus on cricket to recover from that phase and not think about anything else. I started training then and sweated it out a lot at an academy in Dehradun," Shami said.

In March 2018, Shami's wife Hasin Jahan had accused him of domestic violence and lodged a complaint with the police, following which the India player and his brother were booked under relevant sections.

The upheaval in his personal life forced his employer BCCI to withheld the player's central contracts for a while.

"Rehab was stressful as the same exercises are repeated every day. Then family problems started and I also suffered an accident. The accident happened 10-12 days ahead of the IPL and my personal problems were running high in the media," Shami told Rohit.

Shami said his family stood like a rock with him and the support helped him get back on his feet.

"Then my family explained that every problem has a solution no matter how big the problem. My brother supported me a lot."

Speaking about another painful period in his life after his injury in the 2015 World Cup, Shami said it took him almost 18 months to get back on the field.

"When I got injured in the 2015 World Cup, after that it took me 18 months to fully recover, that was the most painful moment in my life, it was a very stressful period.

May 6: They have similar impact on their teams but Virat Kohli is driven by sheer passion to subdue the rivals while Steve Smith just enjoys batting, says Australia opener David Warner.

India skipper Kohli and top Australian batsman Smith are arguably the top two cricketers of the current era. They achieve new milestones consistently, invoking debates, who is better between them.

"Virat's passion and drive to score runs is different to what Steve's would be," Warner said while speaking to Harsha Bhogle on 'Cricbuzz in Conversation'.

"Steve is going out there for a hit in the middle, that's how he sees things. He's hitting them out in the middle, he's having fun, he's enjoying himself, just does not want to get out."

Warner feels, while Kohli is batting he is aware that if he sticks around the middle his team will be on top of the proceedings.

"Virat obviously doesn't want to get out but he knows if he spends a certain amount of time out there, he's going to score plenty of runs at a rapid rate. He's going to get on top of you. That allows the guys coming in, especially in the Indian team you've got a lot of players who can be flamboyant as well."

The Australian opener added that both men are mentally strong and a good knock by them boosts the morale of the entire team.

"When it comes to cricket, they both have got the mental strength, the mental capacity to score runs. They both love spending time in the middle.

"They stabilise, they boost morale - if they score runs, everyone else's moral is up. If they are out cheaply you almost sense that on the field that everyone is (down on morale and thinking) 'now we all have to step up'. It's a very bizarre situation," he added.

Asked about the similarities between himself and Kohli, who are both live wires on the field, Warner said the passion to do better than the opponent keeps him going.

"I can't speak for Virat, obviously, but it's almost like we got this thing in us when we go (out to the middle) we need to prove people wrong, prove someone wrong."

"If you're in that contest, and if I'm going at him for example, you're thinking, 'Alright, I'm going to score more runs than him, I'm going to take a quick single on him'. You are trying to better that person in that game. That's where the passion comes from."

Warner also explained how he breaks down a match into smaller competitions.

"Obviously you want to win the game but you almost break it down to: If I can score more runs than Virat, or if Pujara scores more runs than Steve Smith, you have these little contests and that's how you try to narrow the game in the sense that if we do these little things, we can be ahead of the game or we can be behind the game.

"The passion is driven by...I know my sense - one, the will to win and two, wanting to do better than that person in the opposition," said Warner.

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.