UAE govt bends rules to issue birth certificate to Indian interfaith couple's newborn

Washington, Jun 6: Washington mayor Muriel Bowser on Friday renamed an area near the White House that has become the epicenter of anti-racism protests over the past week "Black Lives Matter Plaza" -- unveiling a giant street mural.

But in so doing, the African-American mayor piqued the ire of the very movement she was supporting, as well as of President Donald Trump.

The protests are focused on the May 25 death in Minneapolis of 46-year-old black man George Floyd while in police custody. A white officer kneeled on his neck until he lost consciousness.

That officer and three others are now in custody and facing charges -- second-degree murder for the kneeling officer, and aiding and abetting that crime for his colleagues.

Just north of the White House, the words BLACK LIVES MATTER were painted in huge yellow letters along the street leading to the presidential mansion, along with the symbol from the DC flag.

"The section of 16th street in front of the White House is now officially 'Black Lives Matter Plaza'," Bowser tweeted.

A city worker put up a new street sign with the name.

"Determination to make America the land it ought to be," she said on Twitter.

The corner of 16th and H is significant -- in a controversial incident on Monday, peaceful protesters gathered there were dispersed with tear gas.

Shortly afterwards, Trump walked from the White House to a nearby church for a photo op, during which he held the Bible in his hand.

"There was a dispute this week about whose street this is. Mayor Bowser wanted to make it abundantly clear that this is DC's street and to honor demonstrators" who protested on Monday, her chief of staff John Falcicchio tweeted.

Rose Jaffe, one of the artists in the collective that painted the BLACK LIVES MATTER sign, told AFP it was "about reclaiming the streets of DC."

But she added that Bowser "has to do more than just a photo-op -- she must carry on when this is washed away" on issues like police accountability.

Stars Like LeBron James praised her move on Twitter, but the local chapter of the Black Lives Movement balked, calling the mural a "performative distraction from real policy changes."

"This is to appease white liberals while ignoring our demands," it said on Twitter, saying Bowser had "consistently been on the wrong side" of the movement.

'We are well equipped'

The US government deployed a significant contingent of federal officers and National Guard troops from other states -- many of them not wearing any identifying garb or badges -- to handle protests in Washington.

Bowser had called up the local Guardsmen but the Justice Department moved to take partial control of peacekeeping, with Guard troops from as far away as Utah brought in.

In a letter to Trump dated Thursday and tweeted early Friday, Bowser called for "all extraordinary federal law enforcement and military presence" to be removed.

She said their deployment was "inflaming demonstrators and adding to the grievances of those who, by and large, are peacefully protesting for change and for reforms to the racist and broken systems that are killing black Americans."

"These additional, unidentified units are operating outside of established chains of command," she added.

"We are well equipped to handle large demonstrations and First Amendment activities," including the right to assemble, Bowser said.

Trump reiterated on Friday that authorities need to "dominate the streets," and has been unapologetic about the deployment of forces.

And on Twitter, he lashed out at Bowser, calling her "incompetent" and saying the National Guard had saved her from "great embarrassment."

Senator Mike Lee of Utah accused Bowser of evicting Utah National Guard members from area hotels.

She replied: "DC residents cannot pay their hotel bills. The Army can clear that up with the hotel today, and we are willing to help."

New Delhi, Jan 4: "Sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic" is how India is referred to in the preamble of the Constitution. However, J Nandakumar, a key RSS leader and All India Convenor Prajna Pravah, a Sangh offshoot, wants India to reconsider the inclusion of the word "secular", claiming secularism is a "western, Semitic concept".

In an exclusive interview to news agency, Nandakumar said: "Secularism is a western, Semitic concept. It came into existence in the West. It was actually against Papal dominance."

He argued that India does not need a secular ethos as the nation has moved "way beyond secularism" since it believes in universal acceptance as against the western concept of tolerance.

The RSS functionary on Thursday released a book here named "Hindutva in the changing times". The book launch event was also attended by senior RSS functionary Krishna Gopal.

Nandakumar, who has attacked the Mamata Banerjee government in his book for alleged "Islamisation of West Bengal", told IANS: "We have to see whether we need to put up a board of being secular, or that whether we should prove this through our behaviour, actions and roles."

It is for society to take a call on this, rather than by any political class, on whether the preamble to the Indian Constitution should continue to have the word "secular" in it or not, he added.

In between signing his books and obliging wannabe Hindutva cadres with selfies, Nandakumar said that the very existence of the word "secular" in the preamble was not necessary and how the constitution founders too were against it.

"Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Ladi Krishnaswamy Aiyaar -- all debated against it and said it (secular) wasn't necessary to be included in the preamble. That time it was demanded, discussed and decided not to include it," he said.

Ambedkar's opinion was, however, disregarded when Indira Gandhi "bulldozed" the word "secular", in 1976, said the head of the Prajna Pravah, an umbrella body of several right-wing think-tanks

As Nandakumar prepared to return to his base in Kerala, where, he emphasises, the RSS has its work cut out in the "fight against the Kunnor model", he said that the inclusion of "secular" was done with the intent to damage the concept of Hindutva.

"It was to demolish, destroy the overarching principle of Hindutva that binds us together", he said.

Asked whether the Sangh would pressurise the BJP, which has 303 seats in the Lok Sabha, to omit "secular" from the Constitution preamble, Nandakumar smilingly refused to reply.

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".