Venkaiah Naidu is next Vice President of India

An Indian national was killed and four others injured in alleged firing by Nepal police personnel along the India-Nepal border in Bihar's Sitamarhi district today.

Sources said the firing took place after a clash between the Indians and personnel of Nepal police at the Lalbandi-Janki Nagar border in Pipra Parsain panchayat under Sonebarsha police station of the district.

Jitendra Kumar, the additional director general of police (headquarters), confirmed the death and injuries. The place of firing falls under Nepal jurisdiction.

Locals said Vikesh Kumar Rai, 25, died on the spot and Umesh Ram and Uday Thakur received bullet injuries when they were working in an agricultural field. Another person, Lagan Rai, is said to have been detained by the Nepali police.

Injured persons were rushed to Sitamarhi Sadar Hospital for better treatment.

Vikesh Kumar Rai’s father, Nageshwar Rai, said that his agriculture land falls under Narayanpur in Nepal where his son was working.

On May 17, Nepal police had fired blank rounds to disperse dozens of Indians trying to cross the border. It was not clear if they were also farmers.

The district magistrate and the superintendent of police of Sitamarhi have rushed to the spot.

Nepal shares a 1,850-kilometre (1,150-mile) open border with India and people travel across it for work and to visit family. It had closed its international borders on March 22 amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Langkawi, Jan 20: Malaysia will not take retaliatory trade action against India over its boycott of palm oil purchases amid a political row between the two countries, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Monday.

India, the world’s largest edible oil buyer, this month effectively halted imports from its largest supplier and the world’s second-biggest producer in response to comments from Mahathir attacking India’s domestic policies.

“We are too small to take retaliatory action,” Mahathir told reporters in Langkawi, a resort island off the western coast of Malaysia. “We have to find ways and means to overcome that,” he added.

The 94-year-old premier of Muslim-majority Malaysia has criticised New Delhi’s new religion-based citizenship law and also accused India of invading the disputed region of Kashmir.

Mahathir again criticised India’s citizenship law on Monday, saying he believed it was “grossly unfair”.

India has been Malaysia’s largest palm oil market for the past five years, presenting the Southeast Asian country with a major challenge in finding new buyers for its palm oil.

Benchmark Malaysian palm futures fell nearly 10% last week, their biggest weekly decline in more than 11 years.

New Delhi is also unhappy with Malaysia’s refusal to revoke permanent resident status for controversial Indian Islamic preacher Zakir Naik, who has lived in Malaysia for about three years and faces charges of money laundering and hate speech in India.

Mahathir said even if the Indian government guarantees a fair trial, Naik faces the real threat of vigilante action and that Malaysia will only relocate the preacher if it can find a third country where he would be safe.

“If we can find a place for him, we will send him out.”

New delhi, Feb 10: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutional validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act, 2018, and said a court can grant anticipatory bail only in cases where a prima facie case is not made out.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said a preliminary inquiry is not essential before lodging an FIR under the act and the approval of senior police officials is not needed.

Justice Ravindra Bhat, the other member of the bench, said in a concurring verdict that every citizen needs to treat fellow citizens equally and foster the concept of fraternity.

Justice Bhat said a court can quash the FIR if a prima facie case is not made out under the SC/ST Act and the liberal use of anticipatory bail will defeat the intention of Parliament.

The top court's verdict came on a batch of PILs challenging the validity of the SC/ST Amendment Act of 2018, which was brought to nullify the effect of the apex court's 2018 ruling, which had diluted the provisions of the stringent Act.