Illegal migrants are SP, BSP vote bank: Amit Shah

Sitamarhi, Jun 15: Eyewitness accounts from locals in Bihar's Sitamarhi district recount the brutality and intimidation by Nepal's security personnel who on June 12 had resorted to unprovoked firing on a group of people at the international border, which left one Indian dead and two others injured.

"18-20 shots were fired for over one hour and everyone is in shock even now," said Nitish Kumar, a resident of Jankinagar recalling the incident that took place early on Friday morning.

Nepal's Armed Police Force (APF) opened fire at the Lalbandi-Jankinagar border in which three men - Vikesh Yadav, Umesh Ram and Uday Thakur - suffered gunshot injuries. Vikash Yadav succumbed to his injuries on Friday itself.

Another person Lagan Kishore, who was at the border with his family to meet his daughter-in-law, a Nepali national and her family, said he was detained by the APF personnel who dragged him to the other side of the border.

Lagan Kishore said that the Nepali personnel abused and hit him with rifle butts and even abused his son and later resorted to firing.

Several residents of Jankinagar, who spoke to media, termed the incident as "unfortunate and shocking".

Nitish Kumar recalled: "A family was here to meet their in-laws (Nepali nationals). The daughter-in-law was talking to her family while her husband and her father-in-law sat a little distance away. Suddenly I saw Nepali personnel abusing her husband who complained about it to his father. All of a sudden the Nepali forces started thrashing them and then opened fire. They also took the father into custody."

"We were all shocked. I could hear about 18-20 gunshots fired over a period of one hour," Kumar said.

Another local, Ajit Kumar, said he was perplexed with the behaviour of the Nepali Police.

"There used to be no problems earlier. We don't understand what happened to the Nepal Police that day. The firing is unfortunate. If this continues, how will people in the border area live?" he questioned.

Ajit Kumar stated that such an incident has taken place for the first time. "People from here go to work in fields in Nepal and their people come to work in our fields. Such a thing has happened for the first time. About 80 per cent of our people are married to Nepalis," he said.

Many people who live in the adjoining districts of Bihar, which shares over 600 kilometres of border with Nepal, have relatives on either side of the border.

Meanwhile, Nepali police have claimed that Lagan Kishore, who was taken into custody following the firing by APF and handed over to Indian Security Forces at no man's land on June 13, was detained for trying to snatch a weapon from one of their personnel during an altercation.

However, both Kishore and his family have denied the claims and said he was "dragged" across the border and was beaten.

Kishore said that during the firing he had rushed towards the Indian side but Nepalese personnel hit him with rifle butt and took him to Nepal's Sangrampur. He was also asked to confess that he was taken into custody from the Nepali side.

"We ran to return to India when they started firing, but they dragged me from the Indian side, hit me with a rifle butt and took me to Nepal's Sangrampur. They told me to confess that I was brought there from Nepal. I told them you can kill me but I was brought there from India," said Kishore.

Kishore's son also said that Nepali personnel started abusing them and hit him and his father.

Speaking to ANI, Kishore's son said, "We went to meet my brother-in-law. Security personnel started abusing me but I could not understand their language. However, my brother's wife asked them to not abuse. After that, they came to the Indian side and hit me. I told my father about the incident and he confronted them."

"They started beating him and called fellow personnel who started firing and dragged my father from the Indian side, hit him with a rifle butt and took him to Nepal''s Sangrampur," he said.

Relations have become strained between India and Nepal after the latter released a map showing parts of Indian Territory-Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura as its own.

New Delhi, May 19: Spitting at workplace will be punishable with fine, the Personnel Ministry has said, citing the national directives for COVID-19 management.

In an order issued to all central government departments, it has asked their heads to ensure strict compliance of this and other directives in this regard.

This order is likely to bring about changes in and around government and private work places, where one can easily spot stains of 'pan' and 'gutka' spitted at some of the corners of walls or areas not frequented by many employees/public.

"Spitting in public and work places shall be punishable with fine, as may be prescribed in accordance with its laws, rules and regulations by the state/union territory local authority," said the national directives issued by the Home Ministry and shared by the Personnel Ministry with all central government departments.

It said wearing 'face cover' is compulsory in all public and work places.

In additional directives for the work places, the ministry said as far as possible, the practice from work from home should be followed.

"Staggering of work/business hours shall be followed in offices, work places, shops, markets and industrial and commercial establishments. Provision for thermal scanning, hand wash and sanitiser will be made at all entry and exit points and common areas," the directives said.

Frequent sanitization of the entire workplace, common facilities and all points which come into human contact e.g. door handles etc., shall be ensured, including between shifts, it said.

"All persons in charge of work places shall ensure social distancing through adequate distance between workers, adequate gaps between shifts, staggering the lunch breaks of staff, etc," the directive said.

The Centre on Monday asked 50 per cent of its junior employees, below the level of deputy secretary, to join work in office.

Till now, only 33 per cent of such employees were asked to attend office due to the novel coronavirus lockdown.

Central government employees were asked to work from home due to the lockdown that came into force from March 25.

All officers of the level of deputy secretary and above have already been asked to attend office on all working days.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.