Rejecting the claims made by Shiv Sena that they have the supports of NCP and Congress for formation of a government, both parties have made it clear that they have not decided on support Shiv Sena in forming an alliance government in the state. After a meeting between Congress and NCP leaders in Mumbai, both parties confirmed that an alliance with Shiv Sena has not been finalised yet.
On a day when President’s rule was imposed in Maharashtra after the governor was convinced that no party is able to form a governor, senior Congress leaders Mallikarjun Kharge, K C Venugopal and Ahmed Patel travelled to Mumbai to hold discussions with NCP leaders including Sharad Pawar. After the meeting, a joint statement was issued by Congress and NCP, which said that they are still in the process of conducting discussions.
Joint statement of Congress and NCP
Most importantly, the joint statement says that Shiv Sena had contacted Congress and NCP only on 11th November. “It is important to clarify all points before such an important decision is taken. After today’s meeting, detailed discussions on these matters are important,” the statement said.
The future course of action will be taken after arriving at a consensus between both the parties, the statement added.
NCP leader Praful Patel: A meeting was held between senior leaders of NCP and Congress today. On 11th November Shiv Sena first contacted us formally. We will discuss on all the issues and then take a decision. #Mumbaipic.twitter.com/65aprntKXD
Addressing reporters, NCP chief Sharad Pawar said that no talks took place with Shiv Sena on forming a government. He said that lots of things were not made clear yet, and more discussions are needed to decide on a Common Minimum Program. He said that they are not in a hurry, and will hold discussions with Congress before deciding whether to support Shiv Sena. He also said first Congress and NCP have to decide whether the government has to be formed or not.
Congress leader Ahmed Patel also voiced similar opinions. He said, “We need clarity as Shiv Sena fought election with BJP and now wants to come with us. How can we decide without a Common Minimum Programme? First NCP-Cong will settle all issues then we’ll speak to Shiv Sena.” Patel said that Congress can’t take a decision without consulting NCP as they are alliance partners, that’s why they went to Mumbai to meet NCP leaders and further talks are necessary before taking any decision. He also criticised the governor for inviting BJP, Shiv Sena and NCP but not inviting Congress for forming a government, and slammed the decision to impose president’s rule in the state.
It is interesting to note that in the petition filed by Shiv Sena in Supreme Court against the governor for not granting them to gather support, they have mentioned that they have acquired the support of Congress and NCP. “The Petitioners are given to understand that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein are principally willingly to support the Petitioners in forming the government in the State of Maharashtra,” the petition mentions. Shiv Sena has made Congress and NCP respondents in the petition. But the statements of Congress and NCP make it clear that they have not made any such promise so far.
After the Congress-NCP press conference, Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray addressed the media and said that Sena, Congress and NCP will sit together to prepare a Common Minimum Program. “If BJP-PDP, or BJP-TDP or BJP-JDU can come together, then we can try for forming a govt with Congress and NCP who are of different ideologies. After chalking out a Common Minimum Program we will stake claim again,” he added. He said that BJP and Sena were together for many years, but now they have to go with Congress and NCP, and they will hold further talks with both the parties.
In another significate development, BJP leader Narayan Rane has said that BJP is still trying to form a government. He said that it is unlikely that Shiv Sena will be able to form government with Congress and NCP. He added that Devendra Fadnavis is putting in all efforts in this direction.
Kashmir has been grappling with terrorism for decades. Pakistan, India’s not-so-friendly neighbour has been exporting gun-toting Jihadis to wage a “holy war” in Kashmir, not just for the land, but for a misplaced sense of Ummah. However, the media has often been sympathetic to the terrorism in Kashmir, even though it has claimed the lives of thousands – civilians and security forces.
According to South Asia Terrorism Portal, since the year 2000, 4,808 civilians have died in 11,442 incidents of killing. These incidents have claimed the lives of 3426 security personnel.
To give one a glimpse into the tinderbox of terrorism that Kashmir is, following are some of the terror organisations that function in Kashmir.
Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM), Lashkar-e- Toiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Al Umar Mujahideen (AuM), Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM), Harkat-ul Mujahideen (HuM) previously known as Harkat-ul-AnsarHarkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI), Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF), Jamait-ul-Mujahideen (JuM), Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI), Jammu and KashmirJammu and Kashmir Liberation Front – Yasin Malik faction (JKLF-Y).
As a thumb rule, most terror groups active in Kashmir want to overthrow Indian rule and merge Kashmir with Pakistan. Even the ones that claim to fight for the independence of Kashmir, are mostly ones who are funded and sponsored by Pakistan. Pakistan has been waging a prolonged war against India that essentially depends on exporting terrorists to Kashmir and the rest of the country and deepening the faultlines of India to create internal strife.
While the Kashmir history cannot be possibly be summarised in 200 words, the underlying problem of the Kashmir issue is not unknown, however inconvenient it may be for the ‘Liberals’ to digest. While several names and definitions have been applied to the Kashmir conundrum over the years, the truth of the matter is, however, that the reason why Kashmir burns is because of Jihad and Islamic terrorism. However, the media has been extremely kind to the terrorists of Kashmir valley as history bears witness. One recalls how Barkha Dutt once interviewed an injured stone pelter who kept saying he is doing what he does for Jihad, while Barkha kept prodding him to say he was doing it for Kashmir.
However, earlier, only a certain fringe element of the media, like Barkha Dutt used to indulge in the normalisation of terrorism in Kashmir. Now, one sees that the normalisation has taken root even in normal media parlance.
Today, terrorists were neutralised by security forces in Ganderbal district of Kashmir.
A J&K Police spokesperson said one of the terrorists has been identified as a Pakistani codenamed Talha, who was affiliated to the Lashkar-e-Toiba. The identity of the other terrorist is being ascertained, the spokesperson said. “As per the police records, he was operating as commander of the proscribed terror outfit LeT in the areas of Bandipora and was wanted by law for his involvement in terror crimes and civilian atrocities”. “Identity of the other killed terrorist is being ascertained. People are requested to cooperate with police till the area is completely sanitised and cleared of all explosive materials if any.”
While the police statement mentioned by Indian Express explicitly calls the Jihadis as terrorists, the news agencies themselves have chosen to take a different path and call them ‘militants’.
Indian Express headline
While the very police quote in the Indian Express article referred to the men eliminated as terrorists, Indian Express consciously chose to call them ‘militants’.
Of course, Scroll went a little further and called the terrorist a ‘suspected militant’.
Scroll headline
The terrorist neutralised in Kashmir belonged to proscribed terror outfit Laskar-e-Taiba. The UN, while listing LeT as a terror outfit said, “Lashkar-e-Tayyiba was listed on 2 May 2005 pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of resolution 1526 (2004) as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of”, “supplying, selling or transferring arms and related materiel to” or “otherwise supporting acts or activities of” Al-Qaida (QDe.004), Usama bin Laden and the Taliban”. Yet, Indian media went ahead and branded the terrorist as a ‘militant’.
Is this a mere case of semantics? While these headlines may seem benign to the uninitiated, they further an extremely dangerous narrative that normalises terrorism, much like the media did Left terrorism in India.
The terms ‘Militant’ and ‘Terrorist’ have extremely different, though subtle differences in connotation attached to them.
Definition of Terrorism
While there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, the General Assembly has classified certain acts as terrorism.
“Acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them”.
Another example of terrorism-related terminology:
“… criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature, and calls upon all States to prevent such acts and, if not prevented, to ensure that such acts are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature”.
By all standards, whether local Kashmiri terrorists or the ones exported by Pakistan are ‘terrorists’.
Who is a Militant?
It is widely accepted that all terrorists are militant but all militants are not terrorists. Several people have tried to define the difference between a militant and terrorists. While there is no universally accepted definition of either, there are certain broad principles that define the usage of the term.
Militancy is widely accepted as a ‘rebellion’ and it need not be armed either. An opinion piece in ORF think-tank essentially said that negotiation is possible with militants but not with terrorists.
An answer posted in IDSA says:
As per the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2012, a terrorist act is an “act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security [economic security] or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country by…” and it goes on to describe a number of ways and means that can be employed for terrorism. However, the important aspect that defines terrorism is the use of or threat to use violence to strike terror amongst the people. Terrorism can be used as an instrument of an insurgency or extremist ideology. It can, therefore, be a stand-alone option or integral to other forms of violent expression.
Militancy is a condition which experiences the use of violence, being combative or predisposed to fight. Militants can include any individual or group which takes to violence. This need not only include terrorists and insurgents, but also armed religious groups which take to violence to further their beliefs. Since resort to violence is a common factor here, often the term militancy and terrorism tend to be used interchangeably. However, since terrorism has greater acceptability as a term to describe extreme use of violence, both internationally and in India, it has largely replaced the term militancy. While it is difficult to ascribe a relative scale, a militant approach could however also imply a more moderate use of violence or expression of combative attributes, whereas terrorism clearly implies an extreme form of violence.
Essentially, militancy thus becomes a watered-down version of terrorism.
Not just semantics
Essentially, the terrorists functioning in Kashmir meet most of the standards that are prescribed to understand whether an armed struggle is terrorism or militancy. They instil terror, have a stated goal of fighting against the state, have religious motivations, they target civilians, they target security personnel, they even target off-duty security personnel as seen in several cases including Pulwama, so on and so forth. The aim of terrorism is to provoke the state to give a disproportionate reaction and the body count is irrelevant to the terrorists.
In fact, the media often forgets that at the peak of this “struggle”, the present-day Kashmir issue largely started with the genocide of Kashmiri Hindus. Even that was termed as “militancy” by large sections of the media instead of blatant terrorism.
While there should be no reason to term terrorists as militants, there seems to be a larger nefarious plan when terrorists belonging to JeM are branded as militants. JeM, as mentioned, is a proscribed terror outfit.
The aim is rather simple – to water down the threat of terrorism in Kashmir and brand it as some sort of armed resistance against oppression from the state, which it clearly is not. Hence, while the terms militancy and terrorism used in the context could seem like mere semantics, they are far more.
Another example
During the Amarnath yatra terror attack, several national dailies termed the attack as a terror attack as it should have. However, several local Kashmiri papers that have known sympathies with terror organisations termed the attack as a ‘militant attack’. The use of semantics and their importance becomes evident when organisations sympathetic towards terrorists brand a terror attack as a ‘militant attack’.
Media and its sympathies with radical Islamism and terrorism
It is no surprise that today the media would brand a JeM terrorist as a militant in an attempt to water down the severity of terrorism threat in Kashmir. This practice has been a usual by fringe elements in the media and is now only being mainstreamed more and more each day. One recalls how Barkha Dutt tried to brand a stone pelter waging Jihad as someone fighting for Kashmir. That demarcation itself shows that while the stone pelter was admitting that he is a terrorist, Barkha tactfully tried to brand him as ‘militant’ fighting oppression.
Mohammad Rafi Bhat was neutralized by Indian security forces in an encounter with the terror organization Hizbul Mujahideen with which Bhat had aligned himself. He was an assistant professor at Kashmir University. The usual suspects were out in full force to defend him saying that the soft-spoken and humble Bhat took to arms because of unrest in Kashmir.
Controversial publication The Quint, which had declared Kulbhushan Jadhav an Indian spy, decided to show Mohammad Rafi as a victim of the state. In their article, they had even written about how the slain terrorist was a ‘prisoner of conscience and not a religious fanatic’ because he ‘always talked about human rights violation by Indian forces’. In this case too, Quint tried to paint Rafi as a ‘militant’ and not a ‘terrorist’ by attempting to show that he picked up the weapon against oppression and not for Jihad, however wrong their assertions were, the intention was nefarious as best and treacherous at worst.
Essentially, media frequently tries to paint terrorists as ‘those fighting oppression’ in order to ensure that the threat of radical Islam and terrorism in Kashmir can be reduced to a mere armed resistance against the oppression of the state. Branding JeM terrorists as ‘militants’ is just another step in the project.
Following the Supreme Court’s verdict granting the contentious land in Ayodhya to the Hindu parties for construction of a grand Ram Temple over it, the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha has written a letter addressed to PM Modi, HM Amit Shah and UP CM Yogi Adityanath stating their demands regarding Kar Sevaks. Mahasabha has demanded the withdrawal of Babri demolition cases against the Kar Sevaks.
#BREAKING:
Within 72 hrs of #AyodhaVerdict , Hindu Mahasabha writes to PM, HM and UP CM asking for:
1. Withdrawal of Babri demolition cases against Kar Sevaks
2. Martyr status for those killed
3. Plaque for the killed and stipend for living Kar Sevaks. pic.twitter.com/D5Wlir59eT
In addition to this, the Hindu Mahasabha has also demanded ‘Martyr Status’ for those Kar Sevaks who died in Ayodhya in 1992 due to government action or due to other reasons. Mahasabha has also pushed for providing financial assistance and a government job to the family of the deceased Kar Sevaks.
In its third demand, the Hindu Mahasabha has asked PM Modi, Amit Shah and Yogi Adityanath to grant “Religious Fighters” status to the Kar Sevaks and on the lines of Freedom Fighters, government benefits to them and monthly pension for financially weak Kar Sevaks.
On December 6, 1992, lakhs of Kar Sevaks swarmed around the disputed site of Ayodhya and in the ensuing commotion the dome of Babri Masjid was caved in. The UP government was then headed by Mulayam Singh Yadav, who was known with his “Mullah Mulayam” sobriquet for ordering police action against the Kar Sevaks.
The demand comes within three day of the apex court’s verdict in the protracted Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in which the court has handed over the dispute landed to the centre for the construction of a Ram Temple and provided 5-acres of land elsewhere to the Muslim side.
The court verdict says that a trust for the construction of the temple be constituted, involving adequate representation of all the convened parties and asked the centre to commence on the construction of the temple within 3 months.
The Vishva Hindu Parishad(VHP) has decided to use crowd-funding method to encourage Ram devotees to come forward and help in the construction of a grand Ram Temple in Ayodha after the Supreme Court passed its verdict in favour of building a Ram temple at the Ram Janmabhoomi site.
In its bid to initiate mass mobilisation for the Ayodhya temple, VHP plans to reach out to Ram devotees across the world to seek financial contributions towards the construction of Ram temple.
As per a report in Times Of India, Vinod Bansal, the national spokesperson for VHP said, “The Ayodhya temple movement struck a chord with millions of people. Scores of people affiliated themselves with the movement and sentiments of many of Hindus were stirred by it. Now they will have to do their bit, including ‘kar seva’. A formal plan will be released soon.”
In addition to this, the VHP has also opened that the trust that has to be instituted within three months to facilitate the construction of temple should bear in mind providing ways for Ram devotees to participate in temple construction and assist them in joining the movement.
Signalling that another round ‘Kar Seva’ might in the offing, a VHP functionary stated that they have plans to invite devotees from all 718 districts of the country and will be provided with accommodation to stay for at least a week and help in construction work. ‘Kar Seva’ was a central part of the movement led by the VHP in 1990.
Confirming the crowd-sourcing plan, VHP working president Alok Kumar said, “There is not a shred of doubt that funds will be sought directly from Hindu devotees of Lord Ram spread across the globe. The process to pool contributions will commence soon for which groups will be made to ensure that it is done smoothly.”
The plan to go crowd-funding comes following the Supreme Court’s much-awaited verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi title suit. The apex court on Saturday announced that the Ram Janmabhoomi site will be handed over to the centre and tasked it with the responsibility of forming a trust with adequate representation from all the involved parties to start the construction of the temple within three months.
The Indian Navy has shortlisted the names of four Indian firms, namely, Tata, Adani, Mahindra Defence Systems and Bharat Forge, which would be its strategic partners for the project involving a deal worth almost Rs 25,000 crore for indigenous manufacturing of 111 Naval Utility Choppers.
At the beginning of the year, the defence ministry had invited private sector companies to participate in this multi-crore deal, which will be the first project to kick off under the strategic partnership (SP) policy under Modi’s ‘Make in India’ initiative.
“The four Indian firms will now need to partner with foreign original equipment manufacturers including European Airbus Helicopters which has offered two choppers, American Sikorsky-Lockheed Martin and Russian Rosoboronexport,” sources in the Navy told ANI.
The Navy will now approach the Defence Acquisition Council with the shortlisted names of both Indian and foreign manufacturers to get the approval from the government and take the process forward.
Indian Navy sources have also confirmed that a total of eight Indian companies had shown interest in becoming strategic partners, which included a public sector undertaking but only four have been shortlisted by the force which will use the new choppers to replace its fleet of Cheetah/Chetak helicopters.
In August last year, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) approved the procurement of 111 utility helicopters for the Indian Navy at a cost of over Rs 21,000 crore as the first under the SP model. “SP model envisages indigenous manufacturing of major defence platforms by an Indian strategic partner, who will collaborate with foreign OEM, acquire niche technologies and set up production facilities in the country,” the ministry had announced.
Under the plan, the first 16 helicopters have to be delivered from the OEM’s overseas production facility and the remaining 95 helicopters are to be manufactured in India by the selected strategic partner.
Following the deadlock over government formation, President’s rule has been imposed in Maharashtra. After President Ram Nath Kovind approved Maharashtra governor’s recommendation of President’s rule in the state after the BJP, the Shiv Sena and the NCP failed to show willingness to form state government, President’s rule has been imposed in the state.
Earlier in the day, Shiv Sena had decided to move the Supreme Court against governor’s for declining to extend time given to them to form government. It is being reported that Sena is going to rope in senior lawyer and Congress leader Kapil Sibal to present its case in court.
Shiv Sena, which pulled out its nominee Arvind Swant from the Union Cabinet yesterday, had hoped to form a government with support from the Nationalist Congress Party and the Congress. However, moments after Shiv Sena leaders led by Aditya Thackeray met the Maharashtra governor to inform that it is willing to form the government, both NCP and Congress clarified that they have not sent any letter of support for Shiv Sena. A press release issued by the Congress also mentioned that the party was talking to Sharad Pawar, while didn’t mention anything about Shiv Sena.
Following the elections held on 21st October, BJP and emerged as single largest party with 105 seats on the results declared on 24th October. However, after the results were declared, Shiv Sena insisted on conditions that were not acceptable to the BJP. The Shiv Sena insisted on the post of the chief minister, which was not acceptable to the BJP. Hence, the logjam over government formation continued. The BJP-Shiv Sena alliance finally broke as Shiv Sena tried to get support from the NCP and Congress. However, they could not manage letter of support.
Receiving severe backlash from the Indian diaspora in Britain for passing a resolution on Kashmir mirroring Pakistan’s stand, the UK’ Labour Party has now retracted its previous statement. In a complete turnaround, the Labour Party’s chairperson, Ian Lavery, has called Kashmir a ‘bilateral issue’ and said that it should be resolved by India and Pakistan. It states that the Labour party is opposed to external interference in the political affairs of any other country.
Just in: months after introducing a resolution on Kashmir, Labour party says Kashmir is a bilateral issue & it is opposed to any external interfence in any other country pic.twitter.com/olegKR8Zbp
The statement said it recognises that the language used in the emergency resolution passed by them in the month of September has caused displeasure in some sections of the Indian diaspora and in India itself and regrets the same. In the statement, the chairman of the Labour Party said that it holds the Indian diaspora community in the highest regard and appreciate the contributions made by Indians to the UK’ economy.
It furthered that the party will not adopt any anti-India or anti-Pakistan stand and would stay neutral on the Kashmir issue. The earlier resolution, however, called for a ‘mediation’ over the issue and was highly critical of India over the so-called ‘human rights violations’ that Pakistan keeps repeating ad-nauseam.
Taking severe offence at the openly anti-India stand over the Kashmir issue displayed by the Labour party, the Indian diaspora in Britain had decided to reject the Labour party electorally in the upcoming elections and had decided to actively campaign for the incumbent Conservative Party in the UK general election.
According to the reports, the Indian diaspora had decided to put their weight behind the Boris Johnson led Conservative party also known as the ‘Tories’ in the 48 marginal seats that go to polls on December 12. The Indian groups are campaigning for the ruling party and asking Indian-origin voters not to vote for the Labour party.
The Indian diaspora campaign against the Labour Party had come as a response for its anti-India stand. On September 25, the Labour Party had passed a resolution that supported “international intervention in Kashmir and a call for UN led-referendum.” The motion was submitted by UK Labour’s British Pakistani politician Uzma Rasool.
Indian foreign ministry had taken notice of the resolution and had immediately condemned it, calling it ‘pandering of vote bank interests’ by Labours politicians from Pakistani-Muslim dominated regions.
The resolution passed by the Labour party had asked Corbyn to meet the high commissioners of both India and Pakistan to ensure there is “mediation” and restoration of peace and normality to prevent a potential nuclear conflict. The Labour party’s stand on Kashmir is contrary to India’s position on Kashmir. India has categorically told the international community that its move on Kashmir was an internal matter. India has always maintained that any dialogues with Pakistan will be bilateral only.
Notably, prominent Pakistan-origin people associated with the Labour Party, and even several Labour party MPs in the UK were part of anti-India protests where Pakistanis attacked the Indian High Commission in the UK in September 2019 on abrogation of Article 370 in J&K.
Since the British Indians constitute a considerable number and also contribute significantly towards the business and economy in Britain, their vote in the upcoming elections and could be a gamechanger if they vote en masse for one single party in the UK elections. Fearing political ramifications of mirroring Pakistan’s lines, Labour Party has probably been compelled to eat’s its own words.
The Rajasthan University has denied the Indian Council of Historical Research permission to organise a seminar on the Indian freedom fighter Veer Savarkar. The denial comes on the heels of the Rajasthan Congress government’s recent move to remove “Veer” from references to VD Savarkar in the textbooks.
The Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) is an autonomous body of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, which had been established by an Administrative Order of the then Ministry of Education. The council has provided financial assistance to the historians and direction to the research scholars in their diverse topics of historical research through accomplished historians and scholars of the country.
In one such event launched by the council on Monday, the body had sought permission from Rajasthan university to have a seminar on Veer Savarkar- ‘The Truth about Savarkar’, a part of council’s multi-city talk series programme, supported by the history-rewriting wing of the RSS affiliate, Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana. However, the University of Rajasthan turned down their request, asking them to change the topic of their discussion.
The bedrock of the multi-city talk series is to counter the false propaganda and lies being peddled about Savarkar and about his writings on the 1857 war of independence, said an ICHR official.
However, the Rajasthan University refused to grant permission to the ICHR stating that “some aspects of Savarkar were deeply controversial”. The University asked the Council to choose some other topic for the seminar.
The head of the department of history and culture, Rajasthan University, Pramila Poonia asserted that they had not refused them entirely but sought a month’s time to deliberate over the issue and involve other stakeholders in arriving at a decision. She said that some facets of Savarkar were profoundly controversial to them and they did not want to incite any problem.
In the run-up to the Maharashtra Assembly elections, the BJP had campaigned for Bharat Ratna to the Hindutva hero. This did not sit well with the Rajasthan CM Ashok Gehlot who was quick to slam the party as a fascist political party with no regard for anyone’s sentiments.
However, many professors at ICHR believe that systematic and coordinated attempts were made to character assassinate Veer Savarkar and thus discredit his propounded Hindutva ideology. Raghuvendra Tanwar, professor, Kurukshetra University, while speaking at ICHR contended that there was a conspiracy to keep Savarkar out of mainstream politics, which was designed by the British because he was endeavouring the political revival of Hindutva.
Another historian who spoke at the event, Himanshu Rai, castigated left for having a partisan view on Savarkar. He slammed the writings of authors Tanika Sarkar, Shamshul Islam and AG Noorani, on Savarkar as “divisive”. Rai contended that the left despised Savarkar because even while serving his jail term, Savarkar initiated the process of Shuddhi, of encouraging prisoners not to convert.
After a swarm of locusts from Balochistan’s coastal areas infested Karachi, Pakistan, its minister of agriculture Ismail Rahu came up with a very creative solution to tackle the problem.
As locusts attack Karachi, minister of agriculture Ismail Rahu tells people to eat tiddi biryani. Simple. pic.twitter.com/DEnYXdrdvH
Offering a solution to this enduring problem, he suggested citizens of Karachi take advantage of the locusts by preparing delicious dishes such as biryani and Kadhai. He said that the citizens should rather add these free-flying proteins to their biryanis, Kadhais and BBQs instead of getting scared of them.
In a video clip, Sindh minister of agriculture was heard saying: “They have come all the way here so the residents should eat them.”
From the last 2 days, Karachi has been getting massive swarms of locusts passing through every corner of the city. Many people took to Twitter to share the horrifying view.
Citizens Share Videos & Pictures as Locust Swarms Invade #Karachi
Karachi is under attack from locusts as citizens witnessed millions of locusts across city on Monday morning
Large number of insects were reported in areas of Shah Faisal Malir Gadap Town Bin Qasim Korangi pic.twitter.com/3tV4WtEBNT
The Pakistan Agricultural Ministery has attempted to pacify the angered residents, who have blamed the ministry for this menace, by assuring that fumigation process will soon be carried out to control the attack. Pakistan had last experienced a locust attack on a similar scale last in 1961.
Experts in Pakistan have reportedly stated that the swarms of locusts have rushed in from coastal Balochistan due to heavy rains in South Sindh and Balochistan in monsoon. The ministry of food security has also assured Karachi citizens that the species will pose no threat to food crops.
Uncertainty and insecurity loom over a former Indian national, who changed her nationality about 19-years-ago to marry a Pakistani man, as Pakistani authorities delay in renewing her Pakistani national identity card.
Sharjah based Kajal Rasheed Khan, who changed her name, religion and nationality to marry Mohammad Rasheed Khan, applied for the renewal of her Pakistani Identity Card on July 31. However, Pakistani authorities are delaying the same as her documents are still “being verified”. Normally the process which takes about 10 days have still been pending with the Pakistani authorities for over 3 months now, as a result of which Kajal’s bank accounts are now frozen in Karachi.
Kalpana, a Hindu girl, who married Mohammad Rasheed Khan in 1996 in Mumbai, thereafter converted to Islam and changed her name to Kajal. Interestingly, 60-year-old Rasheed Khan, who has four wives including two each from India and Pakistan and 10 children, had come to the UAE from Karachi in 1989 and opened a supermarket in Dubai.
Incidentally, one of his Indian wives lives in India with two daughters.
Kajal, whose existing Pakistani ID card is valid until 2023, had to apply for the new smart ID card to operate her bank accounts in Pakistan, which were frozen. Kajal’s husband Rasheed says that while all documents are submitted, there is no progress from Pakistani authorities’ side.
“I fail to understand why my wife’s application is on hold as it is just a renewal of the ID card. She already holds valid Pakistani passport and Pakistani citizenship certificate,” he was quoted as saying.
Kajal, who lives with Rasheed, is an architect by profession. She has a letter issued from the Pakistan Consulate General in Dubai confirming that she had surrendered her Indian passport and was issued with a Pakistani passport in 2001. Still, due to the Pakistani authorities sheer negligence, she now fears to lose her identity in a country which she preferred to be hers.
