#MeToo: MJ Akbar accuses Priya Ramani of defamation

New Delhi, Jun 20: After Prime Minister Narendra Modi said there are no foreign incursions into India, China has once again claimed that Galwan valley of Ladakh union territory is located on the Chinese side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

In an official statement on the step-by-step account of the Galwan face-off where 20 Indian soldiers were killed, China's foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian has said the Galwan valley is located on the Chinese side of the LAC in the west section of the China-India boundary.

"For many years, the Chinese border troops have been patrolling and on duty in this region," Zhao said alleging that since April this year, the Indian border troops have unilaterally and continuously built roads, bridges and other facilities at the LAC in the Galwan Valley.

China has lodged representations and protests on multiple occasions but India has gone even further to cross the LAC and make provocations, Zhao said.

By the early morning of May 6, the Indian border troops, who had crossed the LAC by night and trespassed into China's territory, built fortification and barricades, which impeded the patrol of Chinese border troops, Zhao said adding that they deliberately made provocations in an attempt to unilaterally change the status quo of control and management.

The Chinese border troops, he said, were "forced to take necessary measures to respond to the situation on the ground and strengthen management and control in the border areas."

In order to ease the situation, China and India have stayed in close communication through military and diplomatic channels, he said. "In response to the strong demand of the Chinese side, India agreed to withdraw the personnel who crossed the LAC and demolish the facilities, and so they did.

On June 6, the border troops of both countries held a commander-level meeting and reached consensus on easing the situation. The Indian side, he said, promised that they would not cross the estuary of the Galwan river to patrol and build facilities and the two sides would discuss and decide phased withdrawal of troops through the meetings between commanders on the ground.

"Shockingly, on the evening of June 15, India's front-line troops, in violation of the agreement reached at the commander-level meeting, once again crossed the Line of Actual Control for deliberate provocation when the situation in the Galwan Valley was already easing, and even violently attacked the Chinese officers and soldiers who went there for negotiation, thus triggering fierce physical conflicts and causing casualties."

"The adventurous acts of the Indian army have seriously undermined the stability of the border areas, threatened the lives of Chinese personnel, violated the agreements reached between the two countries on the border issue, and breached the basic norms governing international relations," the spokesperson said.

Beijing, he said, hopes that India will work with China, follow faithfully the important consensus reached between the two leaders, abide by the agreements reached between the two governments, and strengthen communication and coordination on properly managing the current situation through diplomatic and military channels, and jointly uphold peace and stability in the border areas.

New Delhi, May 27: Professor Johan Giesecke of the Karolinska Institute, Sweden, on Wednesday claimed that India will ruin its economy very quickly if it had a severe lockdown.

Claiming that a strict lockdown may disrupt India's economic growth, Giesecke during an interaction with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said: "In India, you will do more harm than good with strict lockdown measures. India will ruin its economy very quickly if it had a severe lockdown."

While calling for a soft lockdown approach in India, he suggested that India has to ease restrictions one by one. It may, however, take months to completely come out of lockdown, he said.

He further criticised countries across the globe for having no post-lockdown strategy.

Emphasising on the disease, the Swedish health expert said that coronavirus is spreading like a wildfire across the world. "It is a very mild disease. Ninety-nine per cent infected people will have very less or no symptoms," he added.

Meanwhile, Ashish Jha, Director Harvard Global Health Institute and a recognised public health official, in interaction with Gandhi, called for a need to go in for an 'aggressive' COVID-19 testing to create confidence among people.

"When the economy is opened post-lockdown, you have to create confidence. There is a need for aggressive testing strategy in high-risk areas," he said.

He asserted that COVID-19 is not the last pandemic in the world, adding that "We are entering the age of large pandemics".

Jha further said that countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong have responded the best to COVID-19 pandemic, while Italy, Spain, the US and the UK have responded the worst.

A few days ago, the Gandhi scion had interacted with former Reserve Bank of India Governor Raghuram Rajan and Nobel Prize Winner Abhijit Banerjee to discuss various issues related to the COVID-19 crisis.

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.