United Nations too rejects Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital

Agencies
December 9, 2017

United Nations, Dec 9: A special meeting of United Nations Security Council has isolated the United States of America in its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a move that set off alarms about the risk of escalating conflict in the Middle East.

Eight of the 15 members of the UN Security Council, the organization the looks out for peace and security around the world, had called for an urgent meeting on Friday to analyze the decision taken by Washington, Efe news agency reported.

A sense of how isolated the United States had become was in the air due to the decision announced by President Donald Trump, who since his electoral campaign had expressed an obvious favouritism for Israel’s stance on the matter.

“The status of Jerusalem must be determined through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians leading to a final status agreement,” the five European nations said in a statement at the end of the meeting.

The European Union “has a clear and united position: we believe that the only realistic solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine is based on two States, and with Jerusalem as the capital of both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine,” the statement said, indicating that until that occurs, the EU will not recognize any sovereignty over Jerusalem.

The European statement was the only collective position issued at the end of the Security Council meeting, which closed without a joint statement or resolution of any kind.

Meanwhile, the US envoy to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, defended Trump’s announcement and took the occasion to slam the United Nations for what she believes is its “hostility” toward Israel.

Ms. Haley said that for many years, the United Nations “has outrageously been one of the world’s foremost centers of hostility towards Israel.”

At the start of the Security Council meeting, the UN special envoy to the Middle East, Nickolay Mladenov, sounded that alarm about the recent US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

In a videoconference from Jerusalem, Mr. Mladenov warned of the “potential risk of violent escalation” that exists following that decision and asked that all parties choose dialogue and avoid provocations.

Mr. Mladenov said that for both Israelis and Palestinians, Jerusalem “is and always will be the centre of their life, their culture,” as well as the “symbol and cornerstone” of the faith of many millions of people around the world.

“Jerusalem is a final status issue for which a comprehensive, just and lasting solution must be achieved through negotiations between the parties,” said the UN special envoy to the Middle East.

He was referring to US President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and said it has caused great “anger” among Palestinians and “anxiety” across the Middle East.

“Only through constructive dialogue can we hope to achieve peace and I call on all parties to remain engaged,” Mr. Mladenov 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
March 1,2020

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.

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
January 6,2020

Lucknow, Jan 6: Undeterred by the large scale protests that claimed as many as 20 lives in the state, Uttar Pradesh government has started the process of implementing the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

According to sources in the government, the district magistrates have been directed to identify the migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, who have been living in their districts.

Sources said that the state home department has given oral instructions to the district magistrates. ''No written orders have been issued,'' said a senior official here preferring anonymity.

The official said that the district magistrates would be preparing a list containing names of those minorities, who had migrated from these countries following their persecution and had been living without obtaining the citizenship of India.

According to sources, the government expected that the migrants, who could be eligible for the Indian citizenship in accordance with the CAA, could be more in number in the districts, including Rampur, Ghaziabad, Shahjahanpur, Lucknow and some others.

''The list will be sent to the union home ministry,'' the official added.

Sources said that the state government will also inform the centre about the ''illegal Muslim migrants'' for their ultimate deportation to their countries of origin.

Different parts of UP had witnessed large scale violence last month during the protests against the CAA. At least 20 people, mostly youngsters, were killed allegedly in police firing and many others were injured. The state government had denied the charge. 

Alleged police excesses during and after the protests triggered a nationwide outrage with several rights organisations and activists slamming the BJP government and demanding a high-level probe into the allegations.

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
June 25,2020

Patna, Jun 25: At least 83 people died due to thunderstorms in Bihar in the last 24 hours, according to Chief Minister's Office.

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar announced Rs 4 lakhs each for the families of deceased.

Thirteen people died in Gopalganj, 8 each in Madhubani and Nawada, 6 each in Baghalpur and Siwan, 5 each in Darbhanga, Banka, East Champaran and 3 each in Khagaria and Aurangabad.

Due to thunderstorms, two people each lost their lives in West Champaran, Kishanganj, Jamui, Jahanabad, Purnia, Supaul, Buxar, Kaimur while one death each was reported in Samastipur, Shivhar, Saran, Sitamarhi and Madhepura.

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.