PM Modi, CRPF jawans pay tribute to lives lost in Pulwama attack

Jan 31: President Ram Nath Kovind on Friday hailed the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act as "historic" in his address to joint sitting of both houses of Parliament, prompting protests by some opposition members.

He also said that debate and discussion on any issue strengthens democracy while violence during protests weaken it.

"The Citizenship Amendment Act is a historic law. It has fulfilled wishes of our founding fathers including Mahatma Gandhi," he said.

"Debate and discussions strengthen democracy, but violence during protests weaken democracy," he said without directly referring to the anti-CAA protests in the country some of which have witnessed violence.

In a reference to abrogation of Article 370, Kovind said there is happiness among people of India that people in Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh have got rights on par with the rest of the country.

The president said Parliament has created record in the first seven months of the new government headed by Narendra Modi by enacting several landmark legislations.

"My government is taking strong steps for making this decade as India's decade and this century as India's century," he said.

Mumbai, Jan 15: Michael Debabrata Patra took over as Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Wednesday.

He was an Executive Director of India's central bank before being elevated to the post of Deputy Governor.

An RBI release said that as Deputy Governor, Patra will look after Monetary Policy Department including Forecasting and Modelling Unit (MPD/MU), Financial Markets Operations Department (FMOD), Financial Markets Regulation Department.

He will also look after Market Intelligence (FMRD/MI), International Department (Intl. D), Department of Economic and Policy Research (DEPR), Department of Statistics and Information Management (including Data and Information Management Unit) (DSIM/DIMU), Corporate Strategy and Budget Department (CSBD) and Financial Stability Unit.

Patra, a career central banker since 1985, has worked in various positions in the Reserve Bank of India.

As Executive Director, he was a member of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of RBI, which is invested with the responsibility of monetary policy decision making in India. He will continue to be an ex-officio member of the MPC as Deputy Governor.

Prior to this, he was Principal Adviser of the Monetary Policy Department, Reserve Bank of India between July 2012 and October 2014.

He has worked in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as Senior Adviser to Executive Director (India) during December 2008 to June 2012, when he actively engaged in the work of the IMF's Executive Board through the period of the global financial crisis and the ongoing Euro area sovereign debt crisis.

The release said that his book "The Global Economic Crisis through an Indian Looking Glass" vividly captures this experience.

He has also published papers in the areas of inflation, monetary policy, international trade and finance, including exchange rates and the balance of payments.

A fellow of the Harvard University where he undertook post-doctoral research in the area of financial stability, he has a PhD in Economics from the Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai.

He will hold the post for three years or until further orders. The post fell vacant after Viral Acharya resigned on July 23 last year.

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".