Magazine

The Citizenship Amendment Bill, passed by the Parliament of India and after the President's seal, has now taken the form of law.

Now it has been implemented across the country, but on one hand, there are protests in the northeastern states on the one hand, while some state governments are refusing to implement it.

According to the news agency ANI, the chief ministers of five states have said that they will not implement it on their own.

The new name of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has been added to this list of Chief Ministers who have talked about not allowing the citizenship amendment law in their state.

Mamta Banerjee has said that she will not allow it to be implemented in her state.

The ruling Trinamool Congress chief said in a press conference on Friday, "India is a democratic country and no party can change its nature. Nobody needs to be scared in our state. No one can get you out Is. No one can implement this law in my state.''

Even before Mamta, two states Punjab and Kerala said that they will not implement this amendment bill on their own.

Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh tweeted, "Any law that divides people on the basis of religion, is unconstitutional and immoral, is illegal. India's power is in its diversity and the Citizenship Amendment Act violates its basic principles. So, my government will not allow it to be implemented in Punjab.''

At the same time, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan also tweeted that the Citizenship Amendment Bill was unconstitutional, that he would not allow it to be implemented in his state.

He tweeted that the central government is trying to divide India religiously. It will destroy equality and secularism.

In the tweet, he wrote, "Determining citizenship on the basis of religion is a rejection of the constitution. This will leave our country far behind. After much struggle, freedom is at stake.

According to the daily newspaper 'The Hindu', he said that the communally polarized law that discriminated against Islam had no place in Kerala.

Apart from this, two other states whose chief ministers have given a statement on this are Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. Both these states have Congress governments.

Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel and Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath said that they are waiting for the decision of the Congress Party on this law.

Now in such a situation, the question arises that can the state governments refuse to implement the citizenship amendment law? What does the constitution say? And what options do those who oppose?

Voices of opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act have so far arisen from non-BJP ruled states. Can these states refuse to implement the citizenship amendment law if they so desire?

Constitution experts say that this is not possible at all.

Constitutional expert Chanchal Kumar states that "President Ramnath Kovind has made it a law by putting his seal on the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2019 on Thursday. This law has come into force as soon as it is published in the official gazette. Now since this statute comes in the Union list under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. So this amendment is applicable to all the states and even if the state wishes it cannot do much on it.''

He explains, "The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution describes the rights of the states and the Center. It has three lists - Union, State and Concurrent List. Citizenship comes under the Union List. Therefore, the State Governments have no authority over it.''

The same thing is also said by the central government that the state has no right to make any decision related to the topic 'citizenship' which comes in the list of the center.

According to a senior Home Ministry official, states cannot refuse to implement the law made under the subjects falling in the Central List.

If the state governments cannot go against this law, then what are the options before those who oppose it? Can this law be challenged in court?

Chanchal Kumar says that no state government, institution or trust can question this law. They say that the issue is of citizenship and citizenship is given to a particular person, so only he can raise voice against it. One can go to the court to challenge it.

Faizan Mustafa, an expert in legal matters, told the BBC that under Article 14 of the Constitution, the state would not deny equal protection under the law to both citizens and non-citizens.

He says that, "The Constitution considers any form of discrimination and classification on the basis of religion to be illegal."

According to him, "Migrant Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are also protected under Article 14. It is against its original spirit to leave people of Islam and Judaism. That means a person can go to court against it and There it has to be proved how this law can change the basic structure of the Constitution. ''

The Indian Union Muslim League had reached the Supreme Court to challenge the Citizenship Amendment Bill even before it was passed in the Rajya Sabha.

After the enactment of the law, the General Secretary of the Jan Adhikar Party, Faiz Ahmed, also filed a petition on Friday.

Apart from this, the Peace Party has also filed a petition in the Supreme Court. He says that this law violates Article 14 and is against the basic structure / Preamble of the Constitution. They say that citizenship cannot be granted on the basis of religion.

Similarly, lawyer Ehtesham Hashmi, journalist Zia-ul-Salaam and law students Munib Ahmed Khan, Apoorva Jain and Adil Talib have also gone to the Supreme Court.

In their petition, they have demanded cancellation of this law as unconstitutional. They have said that this law discriminates on the basis of religion and equality and the Supreme Court should protect the life, personal liberty and dignity of the Muslim community.

On Friday, Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra also filed a petition in the Supreme Court against this amendment law.

In her petition, Moitra said that the exclusion of Muslims under this law shows discrimination, hence it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

She also said that this law also violates secularism, the basic form of our constitution. But what will happen to these petitions in court? Will they be able to prove that it is against the basic form of the Constitution?

Mustafa says that the person who challenges it will be burdened to prove how and in what manner it is unconstitutional.

He says that such cases often go to the Constitutional Bench and many cases are already pending with the Bench due to which it will not be heard soon.

In the Citizenship Act 1955, some contracts have been added under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.

Under this, six minority communities (Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Christians and Sikhs) from Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan who came to India on or before 31 December 2014 who have suffered religious persecution in their country, are not considered illegal. Rather, a provision will be made to give Indian citizenship.

But this will not be applicable in most of the states in the Northeast and some districts of Assam. Because it stipulates that such persons are not residing in Assam, Meghalaya and parts of Tripura where the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution comes into force and Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland falling under Inner Line Permit.

Manipur was also proposed to be included in the Inner Line Permit while introducing the Citizenship Amendment Bill.

The Inner Line Permit is a travel document that the Government of India issues to its citizens for a specified period of travel in any of its protected areas.

It was made a provision in the Regulation of 1873 for protection measures and protection of local ethnic groups.

The states of Northeast India falling in the sixth schedule have also been kept out of the purview of the Citizenship Amendment Bill.

This means that Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, Jains and Christians from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh before 31 December 2014 would not be able to get any land or occupation rights in Meghalaya and Mizoram, despite acquiring citizenship of India.

The citizenship amendment law has been in dispute since the beginning. Prior to the amendment, according to this law, it was mandatory for any person to stay in India for at least 11 years to take Indian citizenship.

The time period has been reduced from 11 to six years for the six minorities of the three neighboring countries, as mentioned in the amended law.

Also, such amendments have been made in the Citizenship Act, 1955, to give legal help to these people to give them citizenship.

The Citizenship Act, 1955 did not give citizenship to people who had entered India illegally earlier and there was a provision to send them back to their country or to be detained.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe canceled his visit to India. This news also dominated the Indian media on Friday amid protests about the Citizenship Amendment Act.

Just a day before that, on Thursday, Bangladesh Foreign Minister Abdul Momin and Home Minister Asaduzzam Khan canceled their visit to India. The reason was Bangladesh's resentment over India's citizenship amendment law.

Citizenship amendment law is being opposed in different parts of India. Especially in the northeastern states. The impact of the controversy, debate and demonstrations regarding this law was also reflected in India's relations with other countries.

Shinzo Abe was scheduled to visit India on Sunday. His visit was proposed from December 15-17 and he was scheduled to meet Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Guwahati in the northeastern state of Assam.

He was to participate in the India-Japan summit. Assam is the center of protests about the Citizenship Amendment Act.

After the cancellation of the tour, Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ravish Kumar tweeted that the two countries will soon set a second convenient date for the meeting. Although there is no information about when this meeting will happen now.

The news and analysis of the cancellation of Shinzo Abe's prominence have also figured prominently in the Japanese media. Japan magazine 'Nikkei Asian Review' has published an almost 800-word opinion article on this whole issue.

This article, focused on the Citizenship Amendment Act, is titled: These changes in India are immoral and self-defeating.

The article has strongly criticized the Citizenship Amendment Act, referring to the canceled visit of Shinzo Abe.

It said that there is no doubt that the Indian strategy to deal with the so-called illegal migrants has to do with religious discrimination. Not only this, it will also have a serious impact on foreign policy and security.

The article warns that India should be afraid of what will happen if other countries also adopt its migrant policies. Because a large population of India lives in other countries through legal and illegal methods.

The news from The Japan Times, published from Tokyo, states that violent clashes are taking place between the mob and police in Guwahati and it has been decided to postpone the visit to Shinzo Abe, keeping in mind the local situation.

According to the news, Japan is trying to strengthen diplomatic and strategic relations with India to keep China under control.

The Japan Times writes that representatives of the two countries were scheduled to discuss security and economic development issues at the summit.

The news also mentions the worrisome situation in Assam and reports from the Indian media. The newspaper writes that thousands of locals in the state have taken to the streets to protest as they fear the new law will bring a large number of foreign migrants there.

Japan's leading newspaper 'Asahi Shinbun' and news website Japan Today have also given prominence to this news. The statement of the Chief Cabinet Secretary has been published in the Japan Times.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga has said, "It was decided to postpone the Prime Minister's visit based on the ground report from India. The outline of this tour will be prepared ahead but no concrete decision has been taken on it yet.''

Negotiations are underway on an agreement on military cooperation in both countries. Shinzo Abe was also going to visit Manipur's capital Imphal with PM Modi during this tour. PM Abe used to go to Imphal's Memorial Hall.

It is known as the Imphal Battle of 1941, where over 30 thousand Japanese soldiers were killed. This is seen as the worst operation of the Imperial Japanese Army. It was also being said that Shinzo Abe could have asked Modi to consider his decision not to join the RCEP.

Just a month ago, Japan had said that if India does not join RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), then Japan will not be a part of it.

5G technology promises high speed internet service and with its help, users download a movie in just a few seconds. It has started in many parts of the world.

4G greatly changed people's experiences, especially the mobile video and gaming experience. 5G will bring more changes.

The introduction of 5G networks in the United States and Britain has also affected the restrictions placed on Khwave.

The US has banned the use of Chinese company Khwwe's devices in the 5G network, citing security reasons and has advised its partners to do the same.

Control is also being given to what American companies can sell to Khwave. This is the reason why the sales of Khwave's phones have fallen worldwide.

Edison Lee, an analyst and industry analyst with financial services group Jefferies, sees this as an attempt to establish America's dominance over the world's 5G market.

They believe that the United States has put pressure on Khwave to prevent China from becoming the king in the region.

He says, "America's reasoning behind this tech war is that China is stepping into the field of technology by stealing intellectual property and the government is spending it wildly. It believes that Chinese telecommunications equipment is not safe. It is a threat to national security. ''

He adds, "As Khwave and ZTE continue to intervene in the global market for telecommunications equipment, Western countries will increasingly take up the issue of espionage."

Khwave has always dismissed allegations that his technique can be used for espionage.

On the one hand, while the western countries are worried about Khwave, on the other hand China has moved ahead in this area.

On October 31, Chinese telecom companies launched 5G service in more than 50 cities, after which the world's largest 5G network came into existence here. About 50 percent of it has been prepared by Khwave.

China's Ministry of Information claims that more than 8 lakh people are connected with this service in just 20 days. Analysts estimate that China will have 110 million 5G users by 2020.

China is now working on a new kind of use of this new technology.

Researchers are developing vehicles on a large area of ​​North Hong Kong that will run on their own with the help of 5G.

Researchers at the Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute are doing this in collaboration with China's largest telecommunications company, China Mobile.

They believe that 5G can prove to be useful for self-driving cars. Through this, the vehicles on the roads will be able to establish better contact with each other, as well as it will be able to know exactly what is going on around.

China is not the first country in the world to introduce 5G. Many other countries have started it before, but the speed with which it has gained dominance in the global market, the countries of the west are very much worried about it.

Companies like Khwwe and ZTE are taking full advantage of this and are competing in the US in overseas markets.

At the 5G conference in Beijing in November, China's Minister of Industry and Information alleged that the US was using cyber security to protect its companies.

Miao Wei said, "No company should be stopped from expanding its 5G network to any country on the basis of allegations that have never been proven."

The Supreme Court in India, while deciding the temple-mosque dispute in Ayodhya, handed over the disputed site to Ramlala and asked the government to form a trust within three months to build the temple, but now in various organizations of monks and saints this Controversy has ensued over joining the trust.

This dispute has reached such a level that the sadhus are not only uttering abuses against their opponents, but also a violent conflict between two groups.

His supporters attacked the saint Paramhansandas of the ascetic camp after his alleged indecent remarks on Mahant Nritya Gopaldas of Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and only after police arrived in large numbers, Paramhansadas could be rescued from there.

At the same time, Paramhansadas has been expelled by the ascetic camp saying that his conduct was indecent and that he will be able to return to the camp only when he changes his behavior.

But it is not just these two parties in this dispute, but also three different trusts already running in the temple construction, besides the other influential saints living in Ayodhya.

In fact, despite the Ayodhya dispute being in court, three trusts were active for the last several years to build a grand temple of Ramlala Virajaman.

The oldest of these trusts is the Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, which was formed in 1985 under the supervision of Vishwa Hindu Parishad and this trust has been working in stone carving for temple construction in Karsevakapuram for the last several years.

The second trust is the Ramalaya Trust which was formed in the year 1995 after the Babri Masjid was demolished and the role of the then Prime Minister of India PV Narasimha Rao is also said to be behind it.

While the third trust is Sri Ram Janmabhoomi temple construction trust formed under the leadership of Janmayjay Sharan, Mahant of Jankighat big place.

All these three trusts are now saying that when the trust already exists for the construction of the temple, then why does the government need to form another trust? All these trusts are pushing for the creation of a temple construction trust under his leadership.

The VHP-led Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is headed by Mahant Nritya Gopal Das of Maniramdas Cantonment.

The trust, which has collected crores of rupees for the construction of the temple during the Ram Mandir movement, is also with this trust.

Since the VHP was the leader of the movement for the construction of the temple, after the decision, the VHP leader and his associated Dharmacharya are claiming to build the temple through this trust and are campaigning for it.

Whereas the Ramalaya Trust was formed in the year 1995 in the presence of 25 Dharmacharyas including Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati of Dwarka Peeth to construct the Ram Temple at Ramjanmabhoomi in Ayodhya. Dharmacharya Swami Bharati of Sringeripeeth was also involved in its formation.

After the Supreme Court's decision Swami Avimukteshwaranand, secretary of the Ramalaya Trust, claimed to have the legal right to build the temple. For this, he also held a press conference in Delhi last week.

Swami Avimukteshwarananda said, "After the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, the Ramalaya Trust has been built for the purpose of temple construction. The temple should be built only through religious leaders. For this we do not need any government help and intervention. We can also go to court if the government interferes in this. ''

The claim of the Ramalaya Trust is the same as that of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas. Both say that they should be entrusted with the task of building the temple and there is no need to create a new trust.

Ramalaya Trust argues that they were formed after the demolition of Babri Masjid and trusts made before it are illegal whereas VHP and Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas say that they have fought the court battle for the construction of the temple, so they also have the right to build the temple.

Whereas Nirmohi Akhara, who was the main party in this dispute, says that whatever new trust is formed, it should have an important role in it. The role of the Nirmohi Akhara has also been talked about by the Supreme Court in its decision.

At the same time, Janmejaya Sharan, president of Sriram Janmabhoomi Temple Construction Trust, says, "The Supreme Court has authorized the central government to form a trust, so it is up to the central government to create a new trust that will build the temple. If this work is given to Vishwa Hindu Parishad alone then we will oppose it. Everyone should focus only on the construction of the temple, except for personal interests. The government should form a new trust by involving representatives from all the trusts and it should be monitored by the government.''

Apart from all this, Acharya Satyendra Das, the chief priest of Ramlala Virajmana, says that the trust should be constituted as per the directions of the Supreme Court and not to be given to any old trust.

According to him, "The Supreme Court has ordered the central government to form a trust. Under this order a new trust should be created. The trusts already built in the name of construction of Ram temple, they too should hand over their assets and funds collected for this to this government trust. The government should force those who do not do so.''

Satyendra Das does not take anyone's name, but Mahanta Dinendra Das of Nirmohi Akhara directly says that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad should hand over the bricks, stones and even cash collected in the name of temple construction.

But the Vishwa Hindu Parishad will hand it over so easily, it does not appear.

VHP spokesman Sharad Sharma says that the central government cannot ignore his work.

Sharad Sharma says, "We have been engaged in temple construction for years, our organization has led this movement. We have got the support and cooperation of all Hindus of the country and abroad. I am confident that Prime Minister Modi will consult us.

The viral audio clip of a conversation between two Mahants in the ongoing controversy over the trust to be built for the temple, has added fuel to the fire.

In an audio clip circulating among the saint communities in Ayodhya, VHP leader and former BJP MP Ram Vilas Vedanti, who was active in the Ram temple movement, is saying that he wants to become the head of the temple trust.

Although we do not confirm this audio clip, but this clip has caused quite a stir among the saints of Ayodhya.

The audio clip is reportedly a conversation between Ram Vilas Vedanti and Mahant Paramhansadas, the head of the ascetic cantonment.

In the same audio clip, Mahant Paramhansadas allegedly uses indecent words for Mahant Nritya Gopal Das, head of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and annoyed with this, the Sadhus, supporters of Nritya Gopal Das, attacked his house.

Nritya Gopal Das has also demanded the inclusion of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in the trust and Akhara Parishad President Mahant Narendra Giri has also supported his demand while in this audio clip Ramvilas Vedanti and Paramhansadas have opposed the inclusion of Yogi Adityanath as they come from the Nath sect and not from Ramanand sect.

Although Ram Vilas Vedanti flatly denies this conversation, while Paramhansadas is not speaking on the issue, Paramhansadasa is making many serious allegations against Mahant Nritya Gopaldas.

Mahendra Tripathi, a local journalist who has been closely observing the temple movement in Ayodhya for years, says, "The Supreme Court may have tried to end the dispute between Hindus and Muslims, but now the dispute between monks and saints in Ayodhya and Conflicts will increase. It was already feared that there would be a mutual confrontation between the Hinduist organizations to be a part of the trust, but now the manner in which the sting operation and verbal attacks on each other are going on, this dispute is expected to increase. There are many other saints who have been waiting for this decision for a long time, now they will also demand that they too be included in the trust.''

Amid growing protests in Nepal, Prime Minister KP Oli on Sunday said that Kalapani is a tri-junction between Nepal, India and Tibet and India should immediately withdraw its troops from here.

Prime Minister of Nepal K P Oli said that Kalapani is a part of Nepal. This is the first time the Prime Minister of Nepal has given public feedback on the controversy arising out of the new official map of India.

India has described Kalapani as its share in the new map. Kalapani is located at the western end of Nepal. There has been no Indian response to Prime Minister KP Oli's statement. However, India says that there has been no tampering of the new map of India along the border with Nepal.

KP Oli said on Sunday while addressing the Nepal Communist Party's youth wing Nepal Youth Sangam, "We will not let even one inch of our land remain in the possession of anyone. India immediately departed from here.''

However, the Nepali PM rejected the advice that Nepal should issue a revised map. Oli said, "If India withdraws the army from our land, we will talk about it."

Protests have been taking place in Nepal for weeks showing Kalapani on the map of India. It is united from the ruling party to the opposition. The Foreign Ministry of Nepal issued a press release on November 6 and said that Kalapani is a part of Nepal.

Nepali Congress spokesperson Vishwa Prakash Sharma wrote on Twitter that party chief Sher Bahadur Deuba has asked in an all-party meeting that he should be asked to leave the Nepalese land where Indian soldiers are.

Samajwadi Party Nepal leader and former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai has also said that PM Oli should talk to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi regarding Kalapani.

After making Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh two union territories, India released a new map. The map included Gilgit-Baltistan and parts of Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

The Nepali PM said on Sunday that he wanted to live in peace with his neighbor. Oli said, "The government will resolve this border dispute through dialogue. Foreign troops should return from our land. It is our responsibility to protect our land. If we do not want someone else's land, then our neighbors should also call back the soldiers from our land.''

Oli said, "Some people are asking that the map be corrected. We can do this now. This is where we can do it. It is not a matter of the map. The matter is to take back their land. Our government will take back the land. The map will then be printed in the press. But the matter is not about printing the map. Nepal is able to take back its land. We have raised this issue together and it is very important together.''

Earlier, Oli was criticized for not speaking on the issue of Kalapani.

Nepali PM KP Oli said, "Stress cannot resolve these issues. Some people are doing this issue to make themselves heroes and some people are making themselves more patriotic. But the government will not do this. The Nepalese government is the Nepalese people and we will not let anyone take even an inch of our land.''

According to Nepal officials, "India withdrew all its border posts from Nepal's northern belt after the 1962 war with China, but not from Kalapani. And the controversy over the Lepu Lekh began in 2014 when India and China agreed to build a bilateral trade corridor through the Lipu Lekh, opposing Nepal's claim. Nepal had raised this issue with both China and India but it has never been formally discussed.''

What is the dispute over Kalapani?

Kalapani is 35 square kilometers of land in Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand. Indo-Tibetan Border Police personnel are stationed here. The Indian state of Uttarakhand borders 80.5 km from Nepal and 344 km from China. The origin of the river Kali is Kalapani. India has also included this river in the new map.

Sugauli Treaty was signed between the East India Company and Nepal in 1816. The Kali River was then lined between East India and Nepal on the western border. When there was a war between India and China in 1962, the Indian Army built an outpost in Kalapani.

Nepal claims that in 1961, before the Indo-China war, Nepal conducted a census here and India did not raise any objection. Nepal says India's presence in Kalapani is a violation of the Sugauli Treaty.

EU Disinfo Lab, a non-governmental fact check NGO in Europe, claims that an Indian network is spreading anti-Pakistan propaganda through 265 'fake media outlets' in 65 countries of the world. All these 'fake media outlets' are connected to the Srivastava Group in Delhi.

It is the same Srivastava Group whose International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies (IINS) arranged for 23 EU MPs to visit Kashmir in October this year and meet Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi.

The European Union has created a forum to deal with the fake news being spread by Russia. This independent fact check is working to identify fake propaganda in Europe. Most of the content of all these 265 outlets is full of anti-Pakistan news.

The EU's Disinfo Lab has found in its layer-by-layer investigation how Delhi's Srivastava Group is connected to the "fake local news outlets" operating abroad.

Disinfo Lab found that many people are sharing the lies being spread by Russia on the EP Today website. After this, when the lab started investigating this website, it came to light that this website is connected to India. After this, several foreign websites came out one after another in the investigation, whose wires were found related to Delhi.

According to the BBC, we came to the address A2 / 59 Safdarjung on the official website to know the Srivastava Group's stand on this whole matter. A house was found at this address, which was guarded by security guards standing at the gate. He told us that there is no office here. No email ID has been provided on this website to contact. When we called the number given, the answer was that "Sir will call you."

On this matter, we have asked through a mail to the Ministry of External Affairs of India whether the information of such websites is with the Ministry. And is it related to the Indian government in any way? We have not received any response from the Ministry till this report is written.

On 9 October, the EU's Disinfo Lab explained on Twitter how the role of Srivastava Group of India came to light in its investigation.

- On the official website of EP Today it has been given the address of Brussels, Belgium. After this, Srivastava Group's official website was scanned. The group is headquartered in Delhi and has an office in Belgium, Switzerland and Canada. The special thing is that the Belgium based office of EP Today and Srivastava Group is at the same address.

- Disinfo Lab says that searching EP Today's IP History revealed that it was hosted on the same server on which Srivastava Group was hosted. That is, both the websites were hosted on a server earlier.

- The original registration of http://eptoday.com was linked to http://UIWNET.COM. The host server of UIWNET.COM and Srivastava Group is one.

- In October this year, a report was told that four people are running the Facebook page of EP Today from Delhi. When the BBC investigated it, it found that its Facebook page had been suspended.

- This Indian group is also working in Geneva, which is the United Nations Refugee Agency. An online newspaper named Times of Geneva (timesofgeneva.com) is being run. On this website it is being claimed that "He has been in this business for 35 years".

- Times of Geneva has the same content which is being printed on EP Today. There is also video on the site of the Times of Geneva, which either talks about the condition of minorities in Pakistan or focuses on Gilgit-Baltistan. There was considerable coverage on the performance of Pakistani minorities on the Times of Geneva.

- The Disinfo Lab claims that an NGO website pakistaniwomen.org is also running on the Times of Geneva server. The lab's investigation reached the Twitter handle of the European Organization for Pakistani Minority (EOPM) via the website. The address of this institution, the address of EP Today and the address of the Brussels office of Srivastava Group are the same.

- Now a third player appears in this case 4NewsAgency. According to the information on its website, it is a group of four news agencies in Belgium, Switzerland, Thailand and Abu Dhabi. However, it has not been told who these four agencies are.

- The claim is that its team is working in 100 countries, but only two offices in Belgium and Geneva have been given on the website. One of them is that EP Today, Geneva Times, 4newsagency and Srivastava Group all have offices in Belgium and Geneva.

- In order to understand the link between 4newsagency, EP Today, Geneva Times and Srivastava Group, the BBC wrote an email to Disinfo Lab, in response to which all these fake media outlets were linked to this agency. The same type of content is being used on these websites.

- The Disinfo Lab says that there are 21 domains that are running from a single server and this includes the Srivastava Group name.

- The Disinfo Lab has received a letter written in 2018. Madi Sharma's non-governmental organization WESTT officially wrote a letter to Antonio Tajani, former Speaker of the European Parliament, to support EP Today's op-ed on Pakistani minorities. The organization of Madi Sharma itself organized 23 EU MPs to visit India.

- The BBC has found in its investigation that Madi Sharma writes articles on EP Today.

- A man of the same name is also writing articles on EP Today and is also working for Madi Sharma's thinktank WESTT.

What do these websites do?
- The Disinfo Lab claims that these '265 fake local news outlets' work to influence international institutions.
- In order to strengthen its credibility, NGOs provide press releases of specific protests.
- All these media outlets quote each other, print the same report on their platforms. This is done in such a way that the reader does not understand the manipulation of the news. Its job is to increase international support for India.
- To distort the image of Pakistan among the people through news and editorials.

The Srivastava group came into the limelight when 23 EU MPs visited India on a non-official visit in October this year. Madi Sharma's NGO Women's Economic and Social Think Tank (WESTT) brought European MPs to India. In his invitation to the MPs, he said that the cost of traveling will be borne by the International Institute of Non-Allied Studies (IINS) based in India.

The Institute of Non Allied Studies is a non-governmental organization founded in 1980. It is stated on the Srivastava Group website that IINS is their institution. Apart from this, some newspapers of this group also print Delhi Times (English), New Delhi Times (Hindi). However, no information has been given on the website about how much circulation of these newspapers are.

According to a report published in The Wire, Srivastava Group has several companies. But documents filed with the Registrar of Companies show that most of its companies are not doing business. They have no money.

There are a total of seven companies operating in this group, on whose board the names of Neha Srivastava and Ankit Srivastava are common.

According to the report A2N Broadcasting reported a loss of Rs 2000 last year. This company has no earnings. It has a balance of 10 thousand rupees in Citi Bank and 10 thousand in Oriental Bank.

This company does not have any big profit business.

According to the BBC, when we started exploring the address A2 / 59 in Safdarjung Enclave, we got an electoral list of the Indian Islamic Culture Center of 2018, according to which Ankit Srivastava and Neha Srivastava live at this address.

Both of them are associated with Shrivastava group. Dr. Ankit Srivastava is the Vice Chairman of this group. At the same time, Neha Srivastava is the Vice Chairperson. But this address is being claimed to be an office.

According to the BBC, after this, we searched their social media accounts and then found the Twitter profile of Ankit Srivastava. There are more than 10,000 followers on this profile and he has described himself as Editor in Chief of the New Delhi Times. The same information has been given on Ankit Srivastava's LinkedIn profile.

According to the BBC, even after several attempts, we could not talk to any representative of Srivastava Group.

The Supreme Court in India has cleared the way to build a temple on Ayodhya on November 9, announcing the disputed land.

A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice Ranjan Gogoi unanimously pronounced the verdict in favor of the temple but also said that breaking the Babri Masjid was an illegal act.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court has admitted that there was a structure under the mosque which was not Islamic, but also said that Indian archaeologists did not claim that the temple was demolished and built a mosque.

When this decision came, different interpretations started. But former Supreme Court judge Justice Ganguly was among the first to raise questions on the Ayodhya verdict. The main question of Justice Ganguly is that he did not understand the basis on which the Supreme Court decided to give the disputed land to the Hindu side.

On all these issues, BBC Indian languages ​​editor Rupa Jha spoke to Justice Ganguly and asked him what and why was his objection to the decision. Justice Ganguly says that the way this decision was given, it bothers him.

He said, "Babri Masjid was there for about 450-500 years. This mosque was demolished on 6 December 1992. Everyone has seen the demolition of the mosque. A criminal case is also going on. This bench of the Supreme Court has also called the demolition of the mosque illegal and criticized it. Along with this, the court decided that the land of the mosque belongs to Ramlala i.e. Hindu side. There is no evidence that the mosque was where the temple was and was built by demolishing it. It was said that there was a structure under the mosque but there is no evidence that it was a temple. ''

Justice Ganguly says this is his first objection. Explaining the second objection, he says, "Archaeological evidence has been built on the basis of disputed land giving." But it has also been said that the archaeological evidence cannot decide the ownership of the land. In such a situation, the question arises, on what basis was the land given? ''

The Supreme Court has referred to travelogues in addition to the archaeological evidence in this decision on Ayodhya. To this, Justice Ganguly says, "The travelogue cannot be evidence." History also cannot be proof. If we will rely on the evidence based on archaeological excavations, what structure was there before, then where will we go through it? ''

"Here the mosque was there for the last 500 years and ever since the Constitution of India came into existence there was a mosque there." All Indians have enjoyed the right to religious freedom since the coming of the constitution. Minorities also enjoy their religious freedom. Minorities have the right to follow their religion. They have the right to defend that structure. What happened to the Babri Masjid demolition? ''

Says Justice Ganguly, "In 2017, para 22 of State v. Kalyan Singh, the Supreme Court has said that the Babri demolition was a crime that has hurt the secularism values ​​of the Indian Constitution." This case is still going on and the person who has committed the crime is yet to be convicted. There is no doubt that crime has taken place and this has seriously violated the values ​​of secularism written in the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has said this. It is yet to be decided who committed the crime? ''

Will the Babri demolition case not reach a logical conclusion now? In response to this question, Justice Ganguly says, "I don't know what the end of it will be." But the Supreme Court has strongly condemned the Babri demolition. The Supreme Court had done this in the past and also in this decision. Now you are giving that land to the Hindu side and its basis is archaeological evidence, travelogue and faith. ''

"Will you decide on the basis of faith?" How would a common man understand this? Especially for those who do not understand the stakes of the law. People have seen a mosque here for years. Suddenly that mosque was demolished. It was surprising to everyone. It was also a shock to the Hindus. Those who are real Hindus cannot believe in the demolition of the mosque. It is against the values ​​of Hindutva. No Hindu would want to break the mosque. The mosque that will break is not a Hindu. There is tolerance in Hinduism. The inspiration of Hindus has been Chaitanya, Ramakrishna and Vivekananda.

Justice Ganguly says, "The mosque was demolished and now the court has given permission to build a temple there." Those who broke the mosque had this demand and the demand has been fulfilled. On the other hand, the Babri demolition cases are pending. Those who broke the law and order and worked against the constitution received no punishment and decided to build a temple on the disputed land. ''

"I have been a part of the Supreme Court and respect it but the matter here is of the Constitution." The fundamental duty of the constitution states that scientific rationality and humanity should be promoted. Along with this, public property should be protected, mosque was public property, it is part of the fundamental duty of the constitution. Breaking the mosque was a violent act. ''

If Justice Ganguly had to make this decision, what would he have done?

In response to this question, Justice Ganguly says, "This is a hypothetical question. Then I can say that if I had to make a decision, I would first restore the mosque and at the same time take the people into confidence so that fairness and the secular values ​​of the Constitution are established in the process of justice. If this cannot be done, then I do not make any decision in favor of anyone. Here a secular building could be ordered which could have a school, museum or university. The temple and mosque would have been ordered elsewhere, where there was no disputed land. ''

A separate appendix has been added to the Judgment of five judges on Ayodhya and there is no signature of any judge in it. What does Justice Ganguly think on this? Justice Ganguly said that this is unusual but he does not want to go on it. How will this decision affect democratic India and the judicial system?

In response to this question, Justice Ganguly says, "This decision has led to fewer answers and more questions. I am shocked and disturbed by this decision. I have no personal case in this.''

What effect will this decision have on the Babri demolition case? Justice Ganguly said that he hoped that its investigation should be done independently and the matter reached its end.''

After the Supreme Court's verdict in the Ayodhya dispute in India, discussions about the five-acre land given to the Sunni Waqf Board are getting heated.

On one hand, there is pressure on the Sunni Waqf Board not to take this land, on the other hand there is a discussion that where will this land be found?

There are also voices of disagreement between Muslim communities and organizations in this matter.

While the Sunni Waqf Board announced its decision to accept it soon after the verdict and not challenge it further, which was also supported by many Muslim religious gurus, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board prepared to challenge the Supreme Court's decision has been doing.

The Personal Law Board has been an advocate on behalf of the other parties in the dispute.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board is going to hold a meeting in Lucknow on 17 November in which it will be decided whether to challenge it further or to take any further step on the decision of the Supreme Court.

Board member and lawyer Zafaryab Jilani says, "What we have to say is that the Muslim side had not asked for land from the Supreme Court at any other place. We were asking for the mosque land back at the disputed site. If we had filed a reconsideration petition, this point will also be included in it.

At the same time, there is also a discussion in the Muslim community whether the Sunni Waqf Board should accept this proposal of the Supreme Court.

The discussion was initiated by AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, who is being supported by many more people.

Owaisi categorically described it as a bailout and said, "Muslims of India are so capable that they can buy the land and build a mosque. I believe that the Sunni Waqf Board should reject this proposal."

At the same time, Sunni Waqf Board Chairman Zafar Farooqi does not listen to Owaisi's point but says that it will be decided after the Waqf Board meeting.

Talking to the BBC, Farooqui says, "We are calling a board meeting soon and will decide in it whether or not to accept these offers of the Supreme Court. If the board accepts this land then only it will be decided that what will be built on five acres of land, Mosque or something.''

"The central and state government has to decide where the land will be given, we will not demand to give land in a particular place, but the government can give this land only in the acquired place."

However, in the Muslim community, there is a special discussion about where this five-acre land will be finally found, because it is not clear in the order of the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, some Hindu organizations are still insistent that no land will be allowed to build a mosque within Ayodhya.

A Hindu organization official, on the condition of anonymity, said, "Five acres of land can be given outside fourteen Kosi. If the government tries to give this land around the birth land in Ayodhya, then the Hindu organization will take the streets against it."

"There is no question of giving it in the area of ​​the acquired land because it can again create controversy in future."

But in conversation with some Muslim youths of Ayodhya, it was felt that even if they are not happy with the decision, if the land is found inside the acquired premises, then perhaps they will be lessened by this decision.

Bablu Khan, a resident of Ayodhya, says, "The Supreme Court has decided, justice has not been done. We cannot do anything in it now but if land is found at the same place then the mosque can be rebuilt."

Some other people of the Muslim community are also demanding that this land should be found in the same area of ​​67 acres, which was acquired by the central government.

Meanwhile, there is a discussion on whether Muslims should rebuild the mosque on the land given to them by the government?

It is being told that the government can give land anywhere in Ayodhya to build a mosque.

Some Hindu organizations may oppose giving land within Panchkosi or fourteen Kosi border, but the government may not have any problem in this because now the scope of Ayodhya has also increased considerably.

Earlier Ayodhya was just a town, but now the name of Faizabad district has become Ayodhya. So was this strategy behind changing the name of Faizabad district to Ayodhya!

India has decided not to join the proposed Free Trade Agreement RCEP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership of ASEAN countries.

The Government of India says that it had concerns on some issues about joining the RCEP, which has been taken in the interest of the country due to lack of clarity.

India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi has called it a decision on 'the voice of your soul', while the Congress is presenting it as its victory.

On Monday, when Narendra Modi attended the RCEP conference in Bangkok, all eyes were on whether he would involve India in this agreement or not.

It was believed that India would sign this trade agreement and many farmers and business organizations were protesting about this.

But in the evening after the RCEP conference, the Secretary (East) of the Ministry of External Affairs of India, Vijay Thakur Singh said that India has decided not to join the RCEP keeping in mind the national interest due to conditions not being favorable.

He said that it was not possible to get involved because of India's issues and concerns regarding RCEP.

He also read the statement given by Narendra Modi at the conference, in which he spoke about taking this decision due to Mahatma Gandhi's Jantar and his conscience.

Vijay Thakur Singh said, "Commenting on this subject, the Prime Minister said that he has taken this decision by thinking about the impact on Indians and especially the weaker sections of society and their livelihood. Mahatma Gandhi's advice to the Prime Minister Thought of, in which he said that remember the face of the weakest and poorest person and think that the steps you are going to take, those To him will be of any use or not.''

"India participated in the discussions of RCEP and negotiated strongly with its interests. Under the current circumstances we feel that it is the right decision for India not to enter into an agreement. We will do business, investment with the region And will continue to strengthen people's relationships.''

RCEP is a trade agreement, which makes it easier for its member countries to do business with each other.

Under this agreement, member countries either do not have to pay tax on import-export or they have to pay very little.

In addition to 10 ASEAN countries, RCEP included India, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Now India will stay away from it.

RCEP has been raising concerns in India for a long time. Farmers and merchant organizations were opposing this saying that if India joined it, the already troubled farmers and small traders would be devastated.

Swaraj Party leader Yogendra Yadav, who is associated with the All India Kisan Sangharsh Samman Samiti, termed India's decision to stay out of the RCEP as important and said that the Prime Minister has respected the public opinion.

Yogendra Yadav said, "A very big and serious decision. And a very good decision. The Government of India and the Prime Minister should be congratulated for this."

"Joining the RCEP could have become a matter of great crisis for India's farmers, for India's small traders."

"This could have resulted in worse consequences later. All kinds of questions were being raised about it. The government went ahead despite all these questions. It seemed that he would go and sign it. But finally honoring public opinion, the Prime Minister decided not to do so. Overall, the decision was made in the national interest.

Yogendra Yadav said that all the farmer organizations of the country had opposed this agreement in one voice. Farmers' organizations associated with BJP and RSS were also among those protesting.

He says, "Even Amul Dairy, considered close to the government, had opposed it. The BJP's own ministers had criticized it vocally. Many state governments had questioned it. A few days ago The Congress had opposed this by changing its policy and taking Utern. All these things will be in the Prime Minister's mind somewhere and he will realize that by coming back this agreement of the country To bring the variation will be no easy task.''

Yogendra Yadav says that this agreement would have disastrous consequences on two-three classes. According to him, if India had reached this agreement, the entire milk industry of India would have come to a standstill due to the import of milk powder from New Zealand.

Talking of farmers and agriculture, the prices of coconut, pepper, rubber, wheat and oilseeds were in danger of falling after this agreement. The business of small traders was in danger of collapsing.

He says, "The Prime Minister must have felt that there has been a slowdown in India's economy on one side, the country has not yet emerged due to the demonetisation. Overall the condition of the country's economy is bad and if there is another setback So the government will be held responsible for it, in such a situation it will be very difficult for the government to stand before the people. All these things must have been in the mind of the Prime Minister.''

The high-level advisory group of the central government, giving its opinion about RCEP, had said that India should join it.

This group said that if India stays outside RCEP, then it will be out of a big regional market.

On the other hand, the producers and farmers of India were concerned that India's experience of free trade agreements has not been good before and the countries with which India will join RCEP, India imports more and exports less.

At the same time China is more supportive of RCEP, with which India's trade deficit is already high. In such a situation, RCEP can worsen India's position.

Crisil economist Sunil Sinha told the BBC that RCEP was being discussed for a long time, but India decided to stay away from it, seeing that it could lead to less, more damage.

Sunil Sinha said, "The most important thing in such agreements is what is the benefit of such cooperation for any country. But RCEP was opposed in the country and it was being said that it was for India Is not much beneficial.''

"I think that when this was discussed, the Indian authorities felt that the more benefit India would get, the more damage it would do." For this reason India would have refused to move forward on this agreement. ''

Sunil Sinha says that as far as China is concerned, it is already an economically prosperous country and it has more reach in East-Asian countries than India.

He said, "Whenever such business negotiations take place, China will be in a position of advantage here, whereas India does not have that advantage."

"We don't have that kind of business relationship with East-Asian countries. India is trying to be part of that regional cooperation, while China has already reached there.''

Apart from the economic aspect, politics has also started in this matter. While the Bharatiya Janata Party is describing it as a visionary decision of the Prime Minister, the Congress is promoting it as its victory.

Terming the Bharatiya Janata Party's acting national president Jagat Prakash Nadda not joining the RCEP, he congratulated the Prime Minister for not bowing to global pressure like earlier Congress-led governments.

But Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala, who is already opposing joining the RCEP, has tweeted that it is a victory for those fighting to protect the national interest. He has credited the opposition of Congress and Rahul Gandhi for India's move not to join the RCEP.

Aramco, the world's highest profitable company, has confirmed to launch an IPO to enter the stock market. It may be the world's largest initial public offering.

The Saudi Arabian oil company said on Sunday that it had planned to be listed on the Riyadh Stock Exchange.

The company, owned by the Saudi Arabian royal family, will decide the IPO launch price according to investor registration and interest.

Business sources believe that one or two percent of the company's existing shares can be made available.

Aramco is said to be worth $ 1.3 trillion ($ 927 billion).

The company said that at present it has no plans to enter the foreign stock market.

Yasir al-Rumyan, chairman of the Aramco board, said at a press conference, "We will tell you about the future of the international stock market."

The history of Saudi Aramco dates back to 1933, when a deal was struck between Saudi Arabia and Standard Oil Company of California (Chevron).

The deal was related to the formation of a new company for exploration and excavation of oil wells. Later, between 1973-1980, Saudi Arabia bought the entire company.

According to the Energy Information Administration, Saudi Arabia has the largest oil reserves after Venezuela. Saudi Arabia is second only to the US in oil production.

In terms of oil, Saudi Arabia also gets priority over the rest of the countries because it has a monopoly on oil in the entire country and extracting oil here is also relatively cheap.

According to David Hunter, director of market studies at Shenderr Electric (Energy Management Company), Aramco is definitely the largest company in the world.

"It is bigger than all the other oil and gas companies," said Shender.

If you compare with some big companies of the world, in 2018, Apple's revenue was $ 59.5 billion. Along with this, other oil companies Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil are also far behind in this race.

It is the world's largest oil company with a production of 10 million barrels per day and earning US $ 356,000 million.

Reliance Industries Chairman Mukesh Ambani has announced to sell 20% of his oil company's shares to Aramco. This will be Aramco's largest foreign investment ever in India.

Chief market analyst Chris Baun at IG Group says that there are risks to investing in Aramco. There are also strategic and political risks to the company.

These threats were also revealed in September this year when Aramco-owned plants were attacked. In Saudi Arabia, two of the company's plants were attacked by drones, which caught fire and caused a lot of damage.

However, the company's chief executive Amin Nasser described the company's plans as 'historic'. He said that Aramco is still the most reliable oil company in the world.

On the occasion of the IPO launch, Aramco was told that the recent attacks will not affect its business, financial condition and operation.

Middle East affairs expert Qamar Aga told the BBC, "American and European investors are not keen on taking risks due to economic slowdown and lack of money in the market. Investors are also skeptical about Saudi Arabia's role in the ongoing war in Yemen.''

The Saudi-led coalition has waged a struggle against the Houthi rebels in Yemen for nearly four years. The Huti rebels also claimed responsibility for the attack on Saudi oil plants in September. But the US and Saudi Arabia held Iran responsible for the attack.

According to Qamar Aga, an important question is also how much oil reserves are left with Saudi Arabia because it is decreasing day by day. Secondly, there is a considerable consumption of oil in Saudi's domestic market as well.

There was a time when Aramco was considered a mysterious company but in the last few years it has completely transformed itself. Today the company has prepared itself carefully for where it has reached.

The company has to spend many years preparing for this. According to Forbes magazine, "In 2016, Aramco did not even have accounting books according to international standards. Neither did he have formal records of institutional charts and structures.''

Aramco has started publishing its economic data since the drone strikes in September. The company now also regularly conducts question-and-answer programs for journalists. Not only that, Aramco had also taken journalists to the drone attack site.

The company has appointed women for some top positions. International concerns have also been mentioned by the company announced on Sunday.

The company has said that its objective is to recycle crude oil for a long time. Introducing accountability towards the environment, Aramco has said that it will reduce the damage to the environment by using modern technology.

The company has said that the local people, even divorced women, will be able to buy its shares and they will be given a bonus for every 10 shares.

Saudi Arabia wants to sell Aramco's shares because it wants to reduce the economy's dependence on oil.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, through his 'Vision 2030', wants to take the country's economy to different regions.

According to David Hunter, Saudi Arabia also wants to get ahead in the production of solar energy by using its vast desert.

Hunter says, "The situation is politically complex for Aramco at the present time. The main reason for this is the killing of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashojji in the last year. Saudi Arabia's record in human rights is not good, so anything related to it Is viewed with suspicion. ''

Another difficulty may be in Mohammed bin Salman's plan, this time there is a worldwide campaign against fossil fuels.

David Hunter says, "It may be difficult for Aramco even further because the trend of investors is decreasing from fossil fuels at the moment and they are looking for new options."

Qamar Aga feels that there are many positive aspects of Aramco, but it will have to wait to see how many investors will be able to attract them.

Aga says that if the company fails to pull investors, then it will have the most impact on him and Saudi Arabia.