Shaheen Bagh shooter family refutes police claim on AAP membership

New Delhi, Jun 30: In a huge blow to popular apps such as TikTok, the Indian government has banned as many as 59 apps that are owned by Chinese companies. The latest announcement comes close on the heels of a rumour of the same, which was termed a hoax by the government. A press release by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has listed 59 apps that will be blocked on internet and non-internet served devices in India, citing reasons that these apps "are engaged in activities prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, the security of state and public order."

Government of India's orders follow the tensions rampant at the Indo-China border after some Indian soldiers were martyred at the Galwan river valley. Ever since the incident, there has been an uproar on social media urging boycott of anything that is related to China, including smartphone brands and apps. While there has been no announcement for the Chinese smartphone brands, the government has immediately blocked as many as 59 apps in India. This means they will not function in India, in addition to their discontinuation on both Google Play Store and App Store at large.

Here are the 59 Chinese apps that have been blocked by the Indian government:

1.            TikTok

2.            Shareit

3.            Kwai

4.            UC Browser

5.            Baidu map

6.            Shein

7.            Clash of Kings

8.            DU battery saver

9.            Helo

10.          Likee

11.          YouCam makeup

12.          Mi Community

13.          CM Brower

14.          Virus Cleaner

15.          APUS Browser

16.          ROMWE

17.          Club Factory

18.          Newsdog

19.          Beauty Plus

20.          WeChat

21.          UC News

22.          QQ Mail

23.          Weibo

24.          Xender

25.          QQ Music

26.          QQ Newsfeed

27.          Bigo Live

28.          SelfieCity

29.          Mail Master

30.          Parallel Space

31.          Mi Video Call - Xiaomi

32.          WeSync

33.          ES File Explorer

34.          Viva Video - QU Video Inc

35.          Meitu

36.          Vigo Video

37.          New Video Status

38.          DU Recorder

39.          Vault- Hide

40.          Cache Cleaner DU App studio

41.          DU Cleaner

42.          DU Browser

43.          Hago Play With New Friends

44.          Cam Scanner

45.          Clean Master - Cheetah Mobile

46.          Wonder Camera

47.          Photo Wonder

48.          QQ Player

49.          We Meet

50.          Sweet Selfie

51.          Baidu Translate

52.          Vmate

53.          QQ International

54.          QQ Security Center

55.          QQ Launcher

56.          U Video

57.          V fly Status Video

58.          Mobile Legends

59.          DU Privacy

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.

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.