Triple talaq law should not be imposed on Muslims without wide consultations: JDU

Agencies
June 15, 2019

New Delhi, Jun 15: BJP ally Janata Dal (United) on Friday opposed the triple talaq bill, which is likely to be tabled by the Narendra Modi government in the upcoming Parliament session, and said any view should not be imposed on Muslims without wide consultations.

"Janata Dal(U) reiterates its previous stand on Uniform Civil Code. Ours is a nation based on a delicate balance in respect of laws and governing principles for different religions and ethnic groups. We must not impose any view without obtaining substantive consultations," its spokesperson K.C. Tyagi said in a statement.

Though the statement did not address the triple talaq bill directly, JD(U) sources said the proposed legislation is at the centre of their stand on Uniform Civil Code as the BJP has often projected its strong push for criminalising instant divorce among Muslims as a step toward uniform civil laws among people of different faiths.

The Bihar party, led by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, had opposed the bill even during the first term of Prime Minister Modi, and the reiteration of its stand makes it clear that the JD(U) remains firm on its stand.

"We are of the view that it (UCC) still needs in-depth consultations with various religious groups. In absence of such a process, any attempt at premature or hasty tampering with long standing religious practices that deal with complex issues of marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance and the right to property and succession, would be clearly inadvisable," Tyagi said.

The JD(U) demands that all the stakeholders must be taken into confidence to make the law more broad, comprehensive and acceptable, he added.

The party also attached Kumar's letter to the Law Commission in 2017 in which he had called for a debate and broad consultation on the issue before any attempt is made to push for it. The Modi government's attempt to push the triple talaq bill for passage in Parliament was blocked in its first term due to its lack of numbers in Rajya Sabha.

While it enjoys a strong majority in Lok Sabha, it will need support from non-NDA parties for the passage of the bill in Upper House. Opposition by allies like JD(U), a member of the NDA, is likely to make its job harder in Rajya Sabha.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 2,2020

Mumbai, Jul 2: The Shiv Sena on Thursday termed the ban on 59 Chinese apps by the Indian government as a "digital strike" and asked if these apps were a threat to the national security, how did they operate for so many years.

An editorial in Sena mouthpiece 'Saamana' sought to know when did the Centre realise these apps were a threat to the national security.

By banning the Chinese apps, Prime Minister Narendra Modi protected the interests of Indian internet users and his courage has be lauded, the Marathi publication said.

India on Monday banned 59 apps with Chinese links, including TikTok, UC Browser, SHAREit and WeChat, saying they were prejudicial to sovereignty, integrity and security of the country.

"If these apps were a threat to national security, how is it that these apps were functioning without any hurdles for so many years. If the opposition says the government neglected national security,then what will the Centre's stand be?" the Shiv Sena asked.

It said questions should be raised on all the previous governments for "allowing national data to go out of the country".

China has expressed displeasure over the Indian government's decision, the Marathi daily said, adding that Chinese soldiers are "still not ready to leave the Galwan Valley (in Ladakh)".

The Sena said it took the sacrifices of 20 soldiers for the government to realise Indian data was being illegally taken out of the country.

"The government took revenge by a digital strike," it stated.

There have been complaints earlier that users' data on Chinese apps was illegally sent out of the country, and apps like TikTok were "promoting vulgarity", it said.

"Many TikTok stars had reportedly joined the BJP," the Sena claimed. "What will happen to them?" it asked.

There is a need to break China economically, but that will not happen by banning its apps. The issue is about trade and investment between the two countries, it said.

"The largest Chinese investment is in Gujarat.

Chinese company Huawei has got the contract to set up 5G network in India. This company having keys to India's digital economy is akin to the Chinese Communist Party owning the Indian economy in future," it said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 27,2020

Global health experts on Wednesday said novel coronavirus is here to stay for more than a year and called for aggressive testing to prevent its spread.

In an interaction with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, health experts Professor Ashish Jha and Professor Johan Giesecke talked about the COVID-19 pandemic as part of the series being aired on Congress social media channels.

While Jha exuded confidence that a vaccine will be available in a year's time, Prof Giesecke said India should practice a lockdown that is as 'soft' as possible, as a severe lockdown will ruin its economy very quickly.

"When the economy is opened up after lockdown, you have to create confidence among people," Harvard health expert Ashish Jha told Gandhi.

Jha is a professor of Global Health at TH Chan School of Public Health and Director, Harvard Global Health institute.

He said coronavirus is a '12-18 months' problem and the world is not going to be free of this till 2021.

The expert also called for the need for aggressive testing strategy for high-risk areas.

Gandhi, while interacting with the experts, said life is going to change post COVID-19.

"If 9/11 was a new chapter, this will be a new book," he remarked.

Professor Johan Giesecke, former chief scientist, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control said India should have a 'soft lockdown'.

"The situation that India is in, I think, you should have a soft lockdown, as soft as possible," he said.

"I think for India, you will ruin your economy very quickly if you have a severe lockdown. It is better, skip the lockdown, take care of the old and the frail...," he noted.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com web desk
June 16,2020

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".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.