US records more than 1,500 coronavirus deaths in past 24 hours: Tracker

New Delhi, Feb 28: The Congress on Friday reacted sharply to the petition in the court seeking registration of a First Information Report against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra for alleged hate speeches. It said the petition was to save BJP leaders Pravesh Verma, Anurag Thakur and Kapil Mishra, referring to the trio as "PAK".

Congress leader Jaiveer Shergil told news agency, "It is political interest litigation to hide the failure of the government and to put a lid on the BJP's involvement in fuelling the fire in Delhi riots.

"This is to hide and save BJP's PAK -- Pravesh, Anurag and Kapil," said Shergil.

The BJP has two parameters, the laws for the common man and citizens of the country are different from those for the BJP leaders, added Mr Shergil.

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notices on a petition for the registration of an FIR against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and others on charges of delivering hate speeches.

Congress said that the PIL was politically motivated and the inaction on the hate speeches made by the BJP leaders, which led to the riots, was shocking.

"When there are 48 cases registered, why three cases against the BJP leaders are not registered," asked Mr Shergil.

A Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel sought responses from the Central and Delhi governments apart from Delhi Police on a petition filed by Lawyers Voice. The matter will again be heard on April 13.

The petition also sought a case against Aam Aadmi Party leaders Manish Sisodia and Amanatullah Khan, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen leaders Akbaruddin Owaisi and Waris Pathan, and lawyer Mehmood Paracha.

"Issue directions to constitute an SIT to look into these hate speeches and take appropriate action. Issue direction to register an FIR against those named in the petition," the petition said.

Jun 9: Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants all 1.3 billion Indians to be “vocal for local” — meaning, to not just use domestically made products but also to promote them. As an overseas citizen living in Hong Kong, I’m doing my bit by very vocally demanding Indian mangoes on every trip to the grocery. But half the summer is gone, and not a single slice so far.

My loss is due to India’s COVID-19 lockdown, which has severely pinched logistics, a perennial challenge in the huge, infrastructure-starved country. But more worrying than the disruption is the fruity political response to it. Rather than being a wake-up call for fixing supply chains, the pandemic seems to be putting India on an isolationist course. Why?

Granted that the liberal view that trade is good and autarky bad isn’t exactly fashionable anywhere right now. What makes India’s lurch troublesome is that the pace and direction of economic nationalism may be set by domestic business interests. The Indian liberals, many of whom are Western-trained academics, authors and — at least until a few years ago — policy makers, want a more competitive economy. They will be powerless to prevent the slide.

Modi’s call for a self-reliant India has been echoed by Home Minister Amit Shah, the cabinet’s unofficial No. 2, in a television interview. If Indians don’t buy foreign-made goods, the economy will see a jump, he said. The strategy — although it’s too nebulous yet to call it that — has a geopolitical element. A military standoff with China is under way, apparently triggered by India’s completion of a road and bridge near the common border in the tense Himalayan region of Ladakh. It’s very expensive to fight even a limited war there. With India’s economy flattened by COVID, New Delhi may be looking for ways to restore the status quo and send Beijing a signal.

Economic boycotts, such as Chinese consumers’ rejection of Japanese goods over territorial disputes in the East China Sea, are well understood as statecraft. In these times, it’s not even necessary to name an enemy. An undercurrent of popular anger against China, the source of both the virus and India’s biggest bilateral trade deficit, is supposed to do the job. But is it ever that easy?

A hastily introduced policy to stock only local goods in police and paramilitary canteens became a farcical exercise after the list of banned items ended up including products by the local units of Colgate-Palmolive Co., Nestle SA, and Unilever NV, which have had significant Indian operations for between 60 and 90 years, as well as Dabur India Ltd., a New Delhi-based maker of Ayurveda brands. The since-withdrawn list demonstrates the practical difficulty of bureaucrats trying to find things in a globalized world that are 100% indigenous.

Free-trade champions fret that the prime minister, whom they saw as being on their side six years ago, is acting against their advice to dismantle statist controls on land, labor and capital to help make the country more competitive. Engage with the world more, not less, they caution. But Modi also has to satisfy the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the umbrella Hindu organisation that gets him votes. Its backbone of small traders, builders and businessmen — the RSS admits only men — was losing patience with the anemic economy even before the pandemic. Now, they’re in deep trouble, because India’s broken financial system won’t deliver even state-guaranteed loans to them.

The U.S.-China tensions — over trade, intellectual property, COVID responsibility and Hong Kong’s autonomy — offer a perfect backdrop. A dire domestic economy and trouble at the border provide the foreground. Big business will dial economic nationalism up and down to hit a trifecta of goals: Block competition from the People's Republic; make Western rivals fall in line and do joint ventures; and tap deep overseas capital markets. The first goal is being achieved with newly placed restrictions on investment from any country that shares a land border with India. The second aim is to be realized by corporate lobbying to influence India's whimsical economic policies. As for the third objective, with the regulatory environment becoming tougher for U.S.-listed Chinese companies like Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., an opportunity may open up for Indian firms.

All this may bring India Shenzhen-style enclaves of manufacturing and trade, but it will concentrate economic power in fewer hands, something that worries liberals. They’re moved by the suffering of India’s low-wage workers, who have borne the brunt of the COVID shutdown. But when their vision of a more just society and fairer income distribution prompts them to make common cause with the ideological Left, they’re quickly repelled by the Marxist voodoo that all cash, property, bonds and real estate held by citizens or within the nation “must be treated as national resources available during this crisis.” Who will invest in a country that does that instead of just printing money?

At the same time, when liberals look to the business class, they see a sudden swelling of support for ideas like a universal basic income. They wonder if this isn’t a ploy by industry to outsource part of the cost of labor to the taxpayer. Slogans like Modi’s vocal-for-local stir the pot and thicken the confusion. The value-conscious Indian consumer couldn’t give two hoots for calls to buy Indian, but large firms will know how to exploit economic nationalism. One day soon, I’ll get my mangoes — from them.

New Delhi, Feb 4: The investigation into the incident of violence at Jamia Millia Islamia during an anti-citizenship law protest was at a crucial stage, the Centre told the Delhi High Court on Tuesday.

The submission before a bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar was made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta while seeking more time to file a report regarding the probe.

Taking note of the submission, the bench granted the Centre time till April 29 to file a reply.

During the hearing, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for some students of Jamia, said 93 students and teachers filed complaints about alleged attacks on them by police but no FIR has been filed against the agency till date.

The other lawyers for the petitioners alleged that the government has not complied with the court order to file a response within four weeks of the last date of hearing on December 19.

The bench, however, declined to pass any interim order and granted time till April 29 to the government to file a reply.