Latest News
27 Sep, 2022
India
22 ° C
Back
China

India, China Pull Back Troops From PP15; Trouble Remains At Demchok And Depsang 

India, China Pull Back Troops From PP15; Trouble Remains At Demchok And Depsang

On Tuesday, official sources confirmed that India and China have withdrawn their troops from Patrolling Point 15 (PP15) in the Gogra Hot-Springs area in Eastern Ladakh, marking the completion of disengagement. “Both sides have completed disengagement at PP15 in a phased, coordinated and verified manner, resulting in the return of the troops of both sides to their respective areas,” said a defence source. Verification, including aerial surveillance of the area, was done to ensure compliance. The details of the disengagement have not been released in the public domain. Last Thursday, both India and China announced that their armies had started the de-escalation process from PP15 in the Gogra Hot-Springs area marking a crucial step to the end of the 2020 standoff. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) had also added that both India and China would take up the remaining issues along the LAC after the disengagement process in PP15 is completed. However, India maintains that friction points at Demchok and Depsang remain as China has refused to accept them as legacy issues before the 2020 standoff. Demchok is one of the mutually agreed disputed areas in Eastern Ladakh, while Depsang is one of the eight friction points in the area. Since the beginning of the May 2020 standoff, there has been a heavy Chinese presence in the Depsang plains, and PLA troops have also been blocking Indian Army patrols from reaching PPs 10, 11,11A, 12 and 13, which lies much before the LAC. As reported, the Indian Army last accessed the PPs in January/February 2020. The Chinese build-up at Depsang is not in India’s interest as the area is close to the Karakoram Pass overlooking the very strategic Saltoro Bridge and Siachen Glacier.

“Fraud On The Constitution” Says Petitioners On 103rd Constitutional Amendment | 10% EWS Quota

Opening their challenge before the constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India U.U Lalit, petitioners argued that reservation could not be implemented as a poverty alleviation programme for the socially and educationally forward classes, which is what the Economically Weaker Sections (Quota) introduced by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment does. The petitioners in the Supreme Court further added that reservation addresses structural inequality and is not a means to become financially well off. Benefits of reservation cannot be given solely based on an economic criterion, argued petitioners. Renowned Jurist Dr G Mohan Gopal opened the arguments for the petitioners before the bench by saying: “Winning a lottery would be a quicker way of ending financial incapacity than reservation. Using financial incapacity [as a criterion for reservation] creates what economists call a moral hazard… It has the potential to reward those who lose money foolishly or carelessly or immorally, such as through gambling, by making them eligible for reservations,” Dr Gopal further added that the 103rd Constitutional Amendment introduced the 10% EWS quota. “To judge anyone as poor on the basis of self-declaration and only on the basis of one previous year’s income makes the implementation of the whole scheme full of loopholes. No one can be termed as poor by having one year’s income as less than ₹8 lakh. In a country where less than 5% file income tax returns and that too is open to manipulations, any such scheme is practically not implementable. To make such unreal, arbitrary and impractical scheme a part of the Constitution is disrespectful to the Constitution makers and shows a lack of thinking on the part of the Union of India,” argued a petitioner. The petitioners also contended on the point that poverty is an impediment which knows no caste or social backwardness. It can travel across social categories and even cross geographical spread. Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj pointed out that no demographic study was conducted before proposing the 103rd Amendment. 

You Are a Shudra Till You Remain a Hindu: DMK Leader A Raja’s Remark Sparks Row

Tamil Nadu: DMK Leader A Raja’s controversial remark on caste has caused a stir, with the Bhartiya Janata Party accusing him of spreading hate. Mr Raja, Nilgris MP and DMK’s Deputy General Secretary, said that the Shudra caste was insulted in Manusmrithi and denied equality, employment, education and entry into temples. “You are a Shudra till you remain a Hindu. You are the son of a prostitute till you remain as Shudra. You are a Panchaman (Dalit) till you remain a Hindu. You are an untouchable till you remain a Hindu,” said A Raja while addressing a meeting of Dravidar Kazhagham. Taking to Twitter, A Raja tweeted his views: “Who are Shudras? Are they not Hindus? Why have they been insulted in Manusmrithi and denied equality, education, employment and temple entry. The Dravidian movement, as a saviour of 90% of Hindus, questioned and redressed these, cannot be anti-Hindus.” Reacting to the statement, BJP State Chief K Annamalai tweeted: “@arivalayam MP has yet again spewed hatred against one community with the sole aim of appeasing others. Very, very unfortunate mindset of these political leaders who think they own Tamil Nadu,” 

Covid-Bulletin: India Registers 5,108 New Cases; Recovery Rate At 98.71%

According to the latest data released by the Union Health Ministry, the country has recorded 5,108 new covid-19 cases in the last 24 hours. The active caseload of the country currently stands at 45,749. Meanwhile, daily recoveries continue to outnumber daily covid-19 cases with registering 5,675 recoveries in the previous 24 hours. The daily and weekly positivity rates currently stand at 1.44% and 1.70%, respectively. As per the Indian Council of Medical Research, the country has conducted 89.02 crore covid-19 tests so far. On the vaccination front, India has administered 215.67 crore covid-19 doses so far under the nationwide vaccination drive.

guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x