New Delhi, May 11 (PTI) Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and four other AAP leaders, accused of violating prohibitory orders here and obstructing public servants in discharge of their duty during an agitation, were today directed to appear before a Delhi court on May 15.

Metropolitan Magistrate Akash Jain was irked that Kejriwal and other accused had not appeared before it even on the last date of hearing and said there was “no justifiable ground” for their exemption from personal appearance.

Advocate Rishikesh Kumar, who appeared for the accused, assured the court that Kejriwal, Sisodia and other accused would positively appear before it tomorrow.

“Kindly give us time for tomorrow. They (accused) all will appear. I am giving undertaking that they will appear before the court tomorrow,” the counsel said.

“It has been submitted that accused number one (Kejriwal) and accused number two (Sisodia) are Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi and remaining accused persons are senior members of the AAP and could not appear today due to their busy schedule. Perusal of the records shows that accused persons did not appear on the last date of hearing,” the court said.

“No justifiable grounds for exemption is made out….Put up for appearance of accused persons and arguments on charge on May 15,” the magistrate said.

Kejriwal, Sisodia and AAP leaders Sanjay Singh, Rakhi Birla, Somnath Bharti and Ashutosh were chargesheeted by the Delhi Police in connection with the case. All the accused were earlier granted bail by the court.

Kejriwal and other leaders had staged a ‘dharna’ outside Rail Bhavan demanding action against police officials who had refused to carry out a raid on an alleged drug and prostitution racket in South Delhi in January last year.

The six accused were chargesheeted by the police for allegedly violating prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the CrPC and also obstructing public servants in discharge of their official duty.

The police had chargesheeted them under various sections of the IPC, including 145 (joining and continuing in an unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of his public function), 353 (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty). .

Islamabad, May 11 (PTI) A former Pakistani intelligence officer disclosed the hideout of Osama bin Laden to CIA in exchange for USD 25 million bounty on the head of the al-Qaeda chief, who was living as prisoner under ISI protection in the garrison town of Abbottabad, according to a report.

“In August 2010 a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer approached Jonathan Bank, then the CIA’s station chief at the US embassy in Islamabad. He offered to tell the CIA where to find bin Laden in return for the reward that Washington had offered in 2001,” the Dawn reported, citing American investigative journalist and author Seymour M Hersh.

The intelligence official, Hersh said, was a military man who is now living in Washington and working for the CIA as a consultant. “I cannot tell you more about him,” he said.

The US confirmed the information provided by the official and put the compound under satellite surveillance. Americans later informed the ISI which set up a cell in Ghazi, Tarbela, where “one man from the SEALs and two communicators” practised the raid before executing the operation, Hersh said, adding that it was difficult decision but Pakistan was ultimately taken on board and told about the script to kill Osama.

Hersh said that whatever the Obama administration told about the operation to kill Osama was part of fiction and the real story was totally different.

“The most blatant lie was that Pakistan’s two most senior military leaders ? Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani (the then army chief) and Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha (the then ISI chief) ? were never informed of the US mission,” he told Dawn.

When the Americans contacted the Pakistani government and asked for Osama, the ISI insisted that he be killed and his death should be announced a week after the operation.

Hersh said the Saudi government also knew about Osama’s presence it Abbottabad and had advised the Pakistanis to keep him as a prisoner. “Osama was an ISI prisoner and never moved except under their supervision,” he said.

The Americans were required to say that the al-Qaeda chief was found in a mountainous region in the Hindu Kush so that neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan could be blamed for keeping him, Hersh said, adding that the ISI wanted him dead because “they did not want a witness”.

Hersh said President Barack Obama did not consult Gen Kayani and Gen Pasha before releasing the cover story that he shared with his nation in a live broadcast.

“The cover story trashed Pakistan. It was very embarrassing for them,” said Hersh. “Pakistan has a good army, not a bad army, but the cover story made it look bad.”

Hersh also said that Dr Shakil Afridi, the physician now jailed in Peshawar for helping CIA trace down Osama’s hideout, was a CIA asset but he did not know about the operation.

Afridi was used as a cover to hide the real story, he said.

Osama was killed in Abbottabad on the night of May 2, 2011, in a covert raid conducted by US Navy Seal.

New Delhi, May 11 (PTI) Eminent banker K V Kamath will be the first president of USD 100 billion BRICS Bank which will provide infrastructure loans to emerging nations, rivalling multilateral lenders such as World Bank and IMF.

Kamath, 67, will have a five year term at the bank, which is likely to be operationalised within one year as ‘New Development Bank’ being set up by the five nation grouping, BRICS, Finance Secretary Rajiv Mehrishi said.

“The appointment will be effective when he becomes free from his current assignment. I think he is on some boards. It may take couple of days,” he said.

Kamath is the non-executive Chairman of the India’s largest private sector bank ICICI. Besides, he is also the non-executive chairperson of the IT bellwether Infosys.

“There is no final decision on his tenure. But it is likely to be 5 years. We got ratification from President of India,” he said, adding it has to be ratified by all the member nation.

Leaders of the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) had last year reached an agreement to establish the New Development Bank, with its headquarters in Shanghai. As per the agreement, India got the right to nominate the first president.

The BRICS nations account for nearly USD 16 trillion in GDP and 40 per cent of the world’s population.

India is hoping to get more funds for infrastructure development from BRICS bank, he said.

The bank will start with an initial paid-in-capital of USD 50 billion with each BRICS country contributing USD 10 billion, while its authorised capital is USD 100 billion.

Equal capital contribution has been decided so that the development bank does not fall into the ownership pattern of IMF and the World Bank, with a distorted shareholding.
Post your comments

New Delhi, May 11 (PTI) The government expects that all MPs will rise above party line to unanimously support changes proposed in Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, which was tabled in Lok Sabha today, Union Minister Jitendra Singh has said.

He said the decision to introduce the bill reflects government’s commitment to eliminate corruption, ensure adequate protection to the complainant reporting corruption and at the same time, also strengthen the safeguards against disclosures which may have a prejudicial effect on the sovereignty and integrity of the country.

The Whistle Blowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015, introduced in Lok Sabha today, amends existing Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011.

The bill is therefore only an attempt to complete the unfinished task of the past government and the amended provisions incorporated as safeguards against disclosures affecting the security, sovereignty and integrity of the nation are nothing new but only inspired by Section 8 of Right to Information Act, which forbids such disclosures, the Minister said.

“It is, therefore, hoped that all sections of the House, rising above party lines, will unanimously support the bill in the larger interest of efficient governance, transparency and sovereignty which are virtues cherished by every political party,” said Singh, Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.

Refuting unsubstantiated observations in certain quarters that the government was not in favour of transparency in governance, he said, the facts, on the contrary, prove that the present dispensation has gone one step further to bring in more transparency without compromising its commitment to the sovereignty and integrity of the country.

Singh said, the story of Whistle Blowers bill is indeed a “tale of travesty”.

The bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26, 2010 and passed on December 27, 2011. Later, when it was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, the then Leader of Opposition in the Upper House, Arun Jaitley had suggested certain amendments to ensure safeguards against disclosures affecting sovereignty, integrity and security of the nation, he said.

“These suggestions and amendments were, by and large, agreed upon by all sections of the House, including the then ruling party.

“However, in spite of this, the bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha in a haste in February, 2014 because the UPA government was in a hurry to take credit for having passed the bill before its rule came to an end,” the Minister said.

Tony Blair has insisted that Labour can recover from its disastrous general election defeat only if it reoccupies the centre ground of British politics, proudly championing a pro-business agenda and bold new ideas to reform public services.

As the party attempts to come to terms with a devastating result that saw the Conservatives returned to office for five more years with an unexpected Commons majority, the former prime minister and three-times election winner said Labour has to be “for ambition and aspiration as well as compassion and care”.

While generous about Ed Miliband – praising him for showing “courage under savage attack” and campaigning brilliantly – Blair made clear in an article in the Observer that he believes Miliband’s left-of-centre agenda alienated the business community and failed to appeal to those wanting to get on in life. In an unashamed call for the party to return to the approach of New Labour which Miliband abandoned, Blair wrote: “The route to the summit lies through the centre ground.

“The Labour party has to be for ambition as well as compassion and care. Hard-working families don’t just want us celebrating their hard work; they want to know that by hard work and effort they can rise up, achieve. They want to be better off and they need to know we don’t just tolerate that, we support it.”

His intervention sets the stage for weeks of bitter arguments over the direction the party should take as it seeks a new leader who can take the party into a 2020 election and ensure it does not spend three terms out of office.

Seeking to avoid any impression that he is stoking conflict at a low point in the party’s history, Blair made the striking admission that Miliband was right to champion the cause of inequality and accepted that during his two-and-a-half terms as prime minister he paid the issue insufficient attention.

“Ed was absolutely right to raise the issue of inequality and to say that Labour should focus anew on it. This will stand as his contribution to the party’s development. In so far as this was an implied rebuke to my politics, I accept it. But we still need ways relevant to today and tomorrow, not yesterday, to tackle it.”

He said that Labour could be convincing in advancing the case for greater equality only if it does so within a wider pro-business agenda. “We have to conduct the big argument on the wealth-creating potential of the macro-economy, not only the targeted campaign on the injustices of it. So we were proud in 1997 to put forward the case for Britain’s first minimum wage. But we could never have an election on it unless set within a broader framework. The same is true with zero-hours contracts.”