Triple Talaq verdict: Centre won't rush to enact a new law

Hyderabad, May 19: Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao has hit out at the Narendra Modi-led NDA government over the fiscal stimulus package, accusing it of treating states like "beggars" and imposing "laughable" conditions for increasing borrowing limits under the FRBM Act.

"This is 'pure cheating. Betrayal. Jugglery of numbers. All gas. The Centre has reduced its own prestige," he said while referring to conditions linked to the increased borrowing limits for states under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act.

Rao cited international journals that had commented on whether the Union Finance Minister's aim was to revive the GDP or to reach the Rs 20 lakh crore number (the stimulus package announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi).

"This is a very cruel package. It is fully in a feudal policy and dictatorial attitude. We fully condemn this. This is not what we asked for," Rao, who had supported several measures taken by the Centre so far in the fight against coronavirus, said.

At a time when the finances of states were paralysed due to COVID-19 global pandemic, the state governments wanted funds to reach them so that they can help people in different forms, he said. "When we asked for it, you treat states like beggars, what did the Centre do? Is this the way reforms are implemented in India?" he asked during an interaction with media on Monday after a cabinet meeting.

For example, two per cent increase under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act (about Rs 20,000 crore in Telangana) has been given.

But, the conditions put are "laughable" and "very nasty" though the loan was to be fully repaid by the state, he said.

Explaining the situation, Rao said Rs 2,500 crore would be given if reforms were implemented in power sector and Rs 2,500 crore would be allowed if reforms in market committees as suggested by the central government are accepted.

"Is this a package? What is this? This cannot be called a package. Very sorry.. This is not the policy to be followed in a federal system... Then what are the state governments for?" the Telangana Rashtra Samithi supremo asked and said they were also constitutional governments and not subordinates.

The CM said he felt anguished and the way the Centre was wielding control over states was against the spirit of federalism.

"Prime Minister ji said cooperative federalism. This has proved that it is totally hollow and bogus," he added.

The state, however, has already fulfilled certain conditions, he added.

On the occasion, Rao also outlined his government's certain policy guidelines for regulatory farming proposed to be implemented.

On the additional water proposed to be drawn by the neighbouring Andhra Pradesh from Srisailam project, he said there was no question of compromising on the states interests.

Flaying Opposition criticism against his government for allegedly failing to protect the state's interests, Rao said he had sought peaceful co-existence with all the neighbouring states.

London, Apr 20 : Embattled liquor baron Vijay Mallya, who is wanted in India on alleged fraud and money laundering charges amounting to an estimated ₹9,000 crore, today lost a High Court appeal in UK against his extradition order to India.

A consortium of Indian public sector banks led by the State Bank of India had sought a bankruptcy order against Mallya as part of efforts to recoup around GBP 1.145 billion of unpaid loans from Mallya.

The 64-year-old former Kingfisher Airlines boss had appealed to the High Court against his extradition to India at a hearing in February this year.

Lord Justice Stephen Irwin and Justice Elisabeth Laing, the two-member bench at the Royal Courts of Justice in London presiding over the appeal, dismissed the appeal in a judgment handed down remotely due to the current coronavirus lockdown.

"We consider that while the scope of the prima facie case found by the SDJ [Senior District Judge] is in some respects wider than that alleged by the Respondent in India [Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED)], there is a prima facie case which, in seven important respects, coincides with the allegations in India," the judges ruled.

Earlier this month, the High Court in London had deferred hearings on a plea by the SBI-led consortium of Indian banks, seeking the indebted tycoon to be declared bankrupt to enable them recover their loan from him.

Justice Michael Briggs of the insolvency division of the High Court granted relief to Mallya, ruling that he should be given time till his petitions to the Supreme Court of India and his settlement proposal before the Karnataka High Court be determined, allowing him time to repay his debts to the banks in full.

New Delhi, Jun 16: Despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi led government’s attempt to downplay the border dispute with China, matters have heated up unprecedentedly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC)- the effective Sino-India border in Eastern Ladakh. 

The country has lost three precious lives – an army officer and two soldiers. The last time blood was spilled on the LAC, before the latest episode, was 45 years ago when the Chinese ambushed an Assam Rifles patrol in Tulung La.

India had lost four soldiers on October 20, 1975 in Tulung La, the last time bullets were fired on the India-China border though both the countries witnessed bitter stand-offs later at Sumdorong Chu valley in 1987, Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014 and Doklam in 2017.

Between 1962 and 1975, the biggest clash between India and China took place in Nathu La pass in 1967 when reports suggest that around 80 Indian soldiers were killed and many more Chinese personnel.

While three soldiers, including a Commanding Officer, were killed in the latest episode in Galwan Valley, the government describes it as a "violent clash" and does not mention opening fire.

New Delhi described the locality where the 1975 incident took place as "well within" its territory only to be rebuffed by Beijing as "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong".

The Ministry of External Affairs had then said that the Chinese had crossed the LAC and ambushed the soldiers while Beijing claimed the Indians entered their territory and did not return despite warnings.

The Indian government maintained that the ambush on the Assam Rifles' patrol in 1975 took place "500 metres south of Tulung" on the border between India and Tibet and "therefore in Indian territory". It said Chinese soldiers "penetrating" Indian territory implied a "change in China's position" on the border question but the Chinese denied this and blamed India for the incident.

The US diplomatic cables quoted an Indian military intelligence officer saying that the Chinese had erected stone walls on the Indian side of Tulung La and from these positions fired several hundred rounds at the Indian patrol.

"Four of the Indians had gone into a leading position while two (the ones who escaped) remained behind. The senior military intelligence officer emphasised that the soldiers on the Indian patrol were from the area and had patrolled that same region many times before," the cable said.

One of the US cables showed that former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger sought details of the October 1975 clash "without approaching the host governments on actual location of October 20 incident". He also wanted to know what ground rules were followed regarding the proximity of LAC by border patrols.

A cable sent from the US mission in India on November 4, 1975 appeared to have doubts about the Chinese account saying it was "highly defensive".

"Given the unsettled situation on the sub-continent, particularly in Bangladesh, both Chinese and Indian authorities have authorised stepped up patrols along the disputed border. The clash may well have ensued when two such patrols unexpectedly encountered each other," it said.

Another cable from China on the same day quoted another October 1974 cable, which spoke about Chinese officials being concerned for long that "some hotheaded person on the PRC (People's Republic of China) might provoke an incident that could lead to renewed Sino-Indian hostilities. It went on to say that this clash suggested that "such concerns and apprehensions are not unwarranted".

According to the United States diplomatic cables, Chinese Foreign Ministry on November 3, 1975 disputed the statement of the MEA spokesperson, who said the incident took place inside Indian territory.

The Chinese had said "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong". In its version of the 1975 incident, they said Indian troops crossed the LAC at 1:30 PM at Tulung Pass on the Eastern Sector and "intruded" into their territory when personnel at the Civilian Checkpost at Chuna in Tibet warned them to withdraw.

Ignoring this, they claimed, Indian soldiers made "continual provocation and even opened fire at the Chinese civilian checkpost personnel, posing a grave threat to the life of the latter. The Chinese civilian checkpost personnel were obliged to fire back in self defence."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson had also said they told the Indian side that they could collect the bodies "anytime" and on October 28, collected the bodies, weapons and ammunition and "signed a receipt".

The US cables from the then USSR suggested that the official media carried reports from Delhi on the October 1975 incident and they cited only Indian accounts of the incident "ridiculing alleged Chinese claims that the Indians crossed the line and opened fire first".