Yuva Sai Sagar

An online news channel

Tag: even-if-the

PM Modi showed ‘huge tolerance’ by shaking hands with Nawaz Sharif, says Shiv Sena

“Modi has shown huge tolerance by shaking hands with Sharif. Even if the other (party) raises hand, we should fold ours. This is our tolerance and Modi has displayed it,” an editorial in Sena mouthpiece ‘Saamana’ said.

Shiv Sena

In a sarcastic take on Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif’s hand shake on sidelines of the climate summit in Paris, the Shiv Sena today said the Prime Minister has displayed “huge tolerance” by shaking hands with his Pakistani counterpart.Modi and Sharif had a brief meeting on Monday in Paris on the sidelines of the UN climate summit during which they warmly held hands before sitting down for a chat amidst frosty ties between the two neighbours.”Modi has shown huge tolerance by shaking hands with Sharif. Even if the other (party) raises hand, we should fold ours. This is our tolerance and Modi has displayed it,” an editorial in Sena mouthpiece ‘Saamana’ said.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Related Read: When PM Narendra Modi shook hands with Pakistani PM Nawaz SharifThe editorial further said that “now nobody has to leave the country on the pretext that there is an atmosphere of intolerance. The country is on the right mode and Modi’s critics should remember that.””Isn’t shaking hands gently with PM of a country whose terrorists are killing our soldiers an act of tolerance? The furore over intolerance in the country should now subside with this display of tremendous tolerance by Modi,” the Sena said. Taking a jibe at the Pakistan Prime Minister, the editorial said that by choosing the ‘muhurat’ of 26/11 to sign a letter of approval for the India-Pakistan cricket series, Sharif has in a way paid tributes to 26/11 terrorist Kasab.”(We are sure) Modi must have questioned Sharif over this,” the ruling alliance partner said. “Modi is doing whatever he can to bring good days to the country and he is touring and flying on a massive scale for the same,” it said.The Sena further said that “If a small country like Nepal warns of taking our soldiers captive, then the time has come to debate where India is going wrong.” “Who knows, one day the Nepal leader will also meet Modi ‘suddenly’ as Sharif met in Paris and the bilateral issues will be resolved in their talks held while standing,” it added. Notably, the Shiv Sena has been opposed to resuming cultural and sports ties with the neighbouring country. Following its protest, Pakistani ghazal singer Ghulam Ali’s concert scheduled in Mumbai was recently cancelled.The party had also opposed the launch in Mumbai of a book written by former Pakistan foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri and Sena activists had later blackened the face of the event organiser Sudheendra Kulkarni.

Dialogue only route to resolution of Kashmir problem: Farooq Abdullah

“How much can the army defend us even if the entire army of India came to our rescue, they cannot defend us against terrorists or militants. The only way left is to hold dialogue and find a solution,” he stressed.

Dialogue is the only way forward for a resolution to the Kashmir issue, former chief minister Farooq Abdullah on Saturday said even as he held that nothing has been done to reclaim Pakistan-occupied Kashmir from the neighbouring country while reiterating views that have invited criticism. “The only way left is to hold dialogue and find a solution (to the Kashmir issue),” the National Conference leader said at a function here. Ever since I came into politics, I have always said that this state (PoK and J-K) can never become one. Neither do we have the power to take back their part (PoK) nor have they (Pakistan) the power to take our part; we are a nuclear power and they, too, are,” he said at a discussion by civil society to explore the ways for bringing peace and reconciliation between the two countries.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”How much can the army defend us even if the entire army of India came to our rescue, they cannot defend us against terrorists or militants. The only way left is to hold dialogue and find a solution,” he stressed.He said he was hopeful that the Kashmir issue would be solved during the tenure of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, but that did not happen. In the wake of his comments yesterday, he blamed the media for hyping up his statement and said his views about Pakistan continuing to hold PoK and India keeping J-K could not be the only scenario and he would accept any decision which was acceptable to the majority of people in India, Pakistan and J-K. “I never said it was the ultimate solution that they keep their part and we keep ours. If you have a better solution acceptable to a majority of Indians, Pakistanis and J-K citizens, it is also acceptable to us,” he said while urging that dialogue has to be started for reaching a resolution.Referring to the 1994 Parliament resolution on PoK, Farooq said nothing has been done following its adoption unanimously to reclaim area under Pakistani occupation. “They say there is a resolution in Parliament; but tell me what the Parliament has done so far to reclaim that part. “You passed the resolution, tell me how many resolutions are there in United Nations regarding Kashmir; have any of those been implemented. People on both sides are suffering due to the cross-border firing,” he said. Meanwhile, BJP today sought an apology from Abdullah for his remarks that “PoK is part of Pakistan” and said he was “deliberately raking up” the issue in order to remain in news for his political survival. “For how many years have we been saying that it (PoK) is part of India. What have we done so far, have we ever taken it back,” he had said yesterday.

Arvind Kejriwal appeals public to donate money for AAP

Kejriwal justified his public appeal saying that AAP does not intend to fill its coffers adopting “wrong means” and would like to be steadfast in its vow to practise honest politics.

Claiming that AAP had run out of cash, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Tuesday appealed to the public to pitch in with money to help run the party’s daily expenses, indicating that its donations had taken a major hit.Kejriwal justified his public appeal saying that AAP does not intend to fill its coffers adopting “wrong means” and would like to be steadfast in its vow to practise honest politics.”After government formation (in Delhi) whatever cash the party had is over. We need money to run the party, for its day to day expenses.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”You may say he’s a strange CM. Asking for money even after becoming the CM. But this is the difference. If I had to earn money using wrong means I could have and there was no need to appeal. But I don’t intend to take that route of corruption,” Kejriwal said.Incidentally, the AAP faced charges of accepting funds from dubious sources during the heated electoral campaign earlier this year.”The public funded us, we never took any money under the table. We gave a record of every rupee we got,” he said.Kejriwal urged people to chip in even if the amount is as low as Rs 10. “Give us because even your Rs 10 would help us practise honest politics.”

Don’t intrude on people’s privacy over beef ban: Bombay HC tells Maha govt

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday declined to stay provisions of a recent Maharashtra law which prohibits possession, transportation and consumption of meat of cow, bulls and bullocks even if the animals have been slaughtered outside Maharashtra.

A division bench headed by Justice V M Kanade was of the view that no stay can be given until the final hearing of a bunch of petitions challenging the beef ban which was fixed on 25 June.

Bombay High Court. IBNLiveBombay High Court. IBNLive

Bombay High Court. IBNLive

The court asked the state government to file a detailed affidavit on the issue within four weeks and allowed the petitioners and intervenors to file rejoinders two weeks thereafter.

As a note of caution, the Court also said that the state shall not intrude on the privacy of citizens to find out if they are in possession of beef or any other form of meat.

The Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, enforced last month by the state government, bans slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks and also consumption and possession of their meat.

Three petitions were filed challenging Sections 5(d) and 9(a) of the Act which prohibits possession, transportation and consumption of meat of cow, bulls and bullocks even if the animals have been slaughtered outside Maharashtra.

According to the petitions, this puts a ban on import of meat. The petitions sought a stay on these sections.

In another development, the court directed the state not to take any coercive action till pendency of petitions or three months against traders who have been found in possession or transportation of beef.

“This is because the Act had been introduced suddenly and reasonable time was not given to the traders to dispose of their products,” said the Judges. However, FIRs can be registered against such traders but no further action can be taken until the petitions are decided finally or three months whichever is earlier, the court said.

The court also clarified that since ban on beef continues in the State under the Act, FIRs can be registered against slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks.

The court clarified that no blanket stay can be imposed on the provisions of the Act which ban transportation or possession of beef, though FIR can be registered against the offenders under the Act. The judges said they were of the view that the traders had not been given reasonable time to dispose of the beef products as the Act was brought in all of a sudden. Hence they directed the State not to take coercive steps against them though FIR can be registered.

“There can be no compelling reason for the State to impose ban without giving a reasonable opportunity to traders provided they abided by the rules on food hygiene and safety,” said the division bench in their brief order.

Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, appearing for one of the petitioners, had argued that such a ban on consumption was violative of the fundamental right of a person to have his choice of food.

“Section 5 (d) is extremely invasive, drastic and intrusive. There is no real justification behind making possession and consumption of beef a cognisable offence. The government should not arbitrarily invade the rights of citizens,” Chinoy argued. He said that the state has not even contemplated regulation of import of meat.

“Five states in India, including Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana, have permitted import of beef despite a ban on slaughter of those animals. And in these states passion go high in such matters but it is still allowed,” Chinoy said.

Advocate General Sunil Manohar had, however, argued that consumption of beef is not a fundamental right of a citizen and the state government can regulate a person’s fundamental right to have his choice of food.

“It is not a fundamental right of a citizen to eat beef. It cannot be said that the government cannot take away these rights. The state legislation can regulate consumption of flesh of any animal the source of which is reprehensible. Under the Animal Protection Act, there is a prohibition on consumption of wild boar, deer and other animals,” he argued.

Manohar further argued that if section 5(d) of the Act, which prohibits possession of meat, is struck down then the Act would remain only on paper and it would frustrate the purpose and object of the Act which is to protect cow progeny.

PTI

Bombay High Court upholds Maharashtra government’s ban on beef

Three petitions were filed challenging sections 5 (d) and 9 (a) of the Act, which prohibit possession and consumption of meat of cow, bulls and bullocks even if the animals have been slaughtered outside Maharashtra.

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday upheld Maharashtra government’s ban on beef. However, it directed the government not to take any coercive steps for its possession for the next three months. A division bench headed by Justice V M Kanade was of the view that no stay can be given until the final hearing of a bunch of petitions challenging the beef ban which was fixed on June 25.The court asked the state government to file a detailed affidavit on the issue within four weeks and allowed the petitioners and intervenors to file rejoinders two weeks thereafter.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>In another development, the court directed the state not to take any coercive action till pendency of petitions or three months against traders who have been found in possession or transportation of beef.”This is because the Act had been introduced suddenly and reasonable time was not given to the traders to dispose of their products,” said the Judges.However, FIRs can be registered against such traders but no further action can be taken until the petitions are decided finally or three months whichever is earlier, the court said.A bunch of petitions had challenged the ban by government on consumption and possession of meat of slaughtered cows, bulls and bullocks.The Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, enforced last month by the state government, bans slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks and also consumption and possession of their meat.Three petitions were filed challenging sections 5 (d) and 9 (a) of the Act, which prohibit possession and consumption of meat of cow, bulls and bullocks even if the animals have been slaughtered outside Maharashtra.Also read: Anti-beef ban rally in Mumbai on May 5According to the petitions, this puts a ban on import of meat. The petitions had sought a stay on these sections. Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, appearing for one of the petitioners, had argued that such a ban on consumption was violative of the fundamental right of a person to have his choice of food.”Five states in India, including Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana, have permitted import of beef despite a ban on slaughter of those animals. And in these states passion go high in such matters but it is still allowed,” Chinoy had said.Advocate General Sunil Manohar had, however, argued that consumption of beef is not a fundamental right of a citizen and the state government can regulate a person’s fundamental right to have his choice of food.”It is not a fundamental right of a citizen to eat beef. It cannot be said that the government cannot take away these rights. The state legislation can regulate consumption of flesh of any animal the source of which is reprehensible.Under the Animal Protection Act, there is a prohibition on consumption of wild boar, deer and other animals,” he argued.

© 2018 Yuva Sai Sagar. Theme by Anders Norén.