Special

In an interview to Iran's state media, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that Russia stands with Iran in the case of killing of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsin Fakhrizadeh.

He said that Russia agreed that he was murdered for the purpose of creating unrest in the region.

Sergei Lavrov described Iran and Russia as "two important countries" playing an important role in the "New World Order of the World".

Iran's state-run TV network One (IRTV1) has translated Lavrov's words of Russian into Persian, saying he said, "We condemn the killing of scientist Mohsin Fakhrizadeh." We see this as an inciting terrorist act and an attempt to create unrest in the region. It is also an issue of interference of foreign governments.''

He also referred to the assassination of Lt Gen Qasim Sulemani on 3 January 2020 and said "it is unacceptable for any country".

Quds Force chief General Qasim Suleimani was killed in a US drone strike in Iraq. The United States had declared him and his Quds Force as terrorists, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American citizens.

At one point in the interview, he emphasizes the point of cooperation between Iran and Russia. He says, "The level of our mutual cooperation with Iran is not with any country." Even during the Corona epidemic, our mutual trade has increased, not decreased.''

He also told that trade with Iran increased by 20 percent in 2019 and during the pandemic it has increased by eight percent.

He asserted that the trade agreements between Iran and Eurasia in 2019 provided opportunities for a larger market for Iran.

Sergei Lavrov criticized the US for withdrawing from the nuclear deal in 2015, as well as emphasizing the importance of removing the dollar in free trade.

Iran's banking sector is restricted and because of this, it cannot use the dollar in trade with foreign countries.

The country's top nuclear scientist Mohsin Fakhrizadeh was killed in an ambush by gunmen in the city of Absard, adjacent to Iran's capital Tehran. Iran's leaders have blamed Israel for the killing and said it will be avenged.

There has been a public outcry over debt payments between Maldives and China. There have always been concerns about China's debt in the Maldives, but the bickering hit the public stage last week.

The saying took place on Twitter between former President of Maldives and current parliament speaker Mohammad Nasheed and Chinese Ambassador to Maldives Chang Lichong.

Nasheed tweeted on 11 December 2020 that in the next two weeks, Maldives has to pay huge debt to Chinese banks.

His claim in this tweet was rejected by the Chinese Ambassador. The Chinese ambassador said that Maldives has to pay the debt but the amount is not as big as Nasheed claims.

Mohammad Nasheed is considered the most popular leader of the Maldives. He is also called pro-India.

Nasheed had said in his tweet, "In the next 14 days, Maldives has to pay $ 15 million somehow to the Chinese bank. Chinese banks have not given us any leeway in these loans. These payments are equal to 50 percent of the government's total income. Maldives is trying to recover somehow in the midst of the Corona epidemic crisis.''

Within two hours, the Chinese ambassador dismissed Nasheed's claims on Twitter. Chang Lichong said in response to Nasheed's tweet, "According to the information I have received from the banks, there is no loan payment of $ 15 million in the next 14 days. You check the account book and save it for the budget. Cheers.''

On 12 December 2020, the Chinese ambassador tweeted, "I have done some homework." The payment of debt of 17 lakh 19 thousand 535 in 2020 is correct. In Hulhumale Housing Project Phase 2, the loan amount of 23 lakh 75 thousand dollars taken for 1530 housing units is from a third country bank and not from China Development Bank. The debt in the Stelco project is to be paid in the second week of January 2021.'' The Chinese ambassador also posted some documents with this tweet.

In response to the Chinese Ambassador's tweet, a Twitter user quoted the Maldivian Ministry of Finance's statement as of December 31, 2018, "According to the annual report 2018, the Housing Development Corporation of Maldives set up 1530 housing units in Hulhumale Phase 3. For $ 4.2 million loaned from China Development Bank. If it comes to repaying this loan, then you will be able to show this screenshot, right?''

There was no response from the Chinese Ambassador on this. In such a situation, Mohammad Nasheed took it as an opportunity and tried to handle the situation.

Nasheed told the Chinese ambassador in his next tweet, "Thank you very much." Our relationship with China matters. Why should we wait for 11 more hours? Find some way out of this debt problem. Maldives needs another two years to repay the loan, otherwise we will never be able to repay these debts.''

Responding to Nasheed, the Chinese Ambassador wrote, "Respected Speaker, I appreciate your support. We have traditionally been friends and this is important to us. Discussions are already taking place on these issues. I am confident that there will be some concrete arrangement in terms of mutual benefit in both the countries so that it will help in bringing the economy back on track.''

Maldives and China have also clashed on Twitter before.

The current Chinese ambassador to the Maldives is known for his attendant response. The result of this is that their fans in Maldives are also very good.

In particular, supporters of former Maldives President Abdulla Yameen openly support the Chinese ambassador. After coming to power in 2013, Yameen grew closer to China than India. In many contract contracts, President Yameen chose China over India.

Yameen's supporters feel that China's ambassador is no less than an assistant to him in fighting the current government in the Maldives. The current government of Maldives is called pro-India.

In November 2020, Nasheed said that the debt of China cannot be repaid even if the people of Maldives sell their grandmother's jewelry too. In response, the Chinese ambassador said, "The jewelry of grannies is priceless but they have a price." I would prioritize friendship with Maldives which has no value.''

Another similar incident happened in November 2020. Dunya Maumoon, the daughter of former Maldives President Abdul Gayoom, was asked about an article in India Today on 10 November 2020. In this article, many things were said about Chinese investment in Male Airport.

The same day the Chinese ambassador told the daughter of former President Gayoom, "Read it as a fantasy." If you want the right information, take it from Maldives Airport.'' Gayoom was also considered as a Chinese-backed president.

Mohammad Nasheed said in an interview to the BBC in September 2020 that the Maldives had borrowed $ 3.1 billion from China. Nasheed had said that this included loans from both the Chinese government and the private sector there.

When the Maldivian Democratic Party of Nasheed came to power in 2018, Indian officials estimated the debt to be $ 1.5 billion.

Nasheed's party has been seeking financial help from India ever since it was formed. India has announced financial assistance of $ 1.4 billion to Maldives.

China and India are the centers of Maldives politics

Discussions in Maldives about China and India are hot in politics there. In September 2020, India Out campaign was being run on social media in Maldives.

Mohammad Nasheed then said that the India out campaign belonged to the ISIS cell. Nasheed had said that under this campaign, there is a demand to remove Indian soldiers from Maldives. The main opposition party was airing the India out campaign in Maldives. The main opposition party of Maldives says that the presence of Indian soldiers is against sovereignty and independence.

In response to the anti-India talk of the opposition party in Maldives, Foreign Minister Abdullah said that those who are "not digesting" the strong bilateral relations, are resorting to such criticism.

At the inauguration of an India-backed street lighting scheme, the foreign minister said, "This is a relationship between the two countries." It is a relationship connecting hearts. We thank him.

In August 2020, India announced a $ 500 million package, including a grant of $ 100 million. Earlier in 2018, India announced $ 800 million for the Maldives.

Prince Turkey al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia has strongly criticized Israel at the Bahrain Security Summit held on 6 December 2020.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi joined it online. This development has presented challenges in the way of any further dialogue between Arab countries and Israel.

According to the news agency AP, Israel has been surprised by the strong remarks of Prince Turkey al-Faisal in the Manama Dialogue because the Israeli Foreign Minister did not expect this to happen.

Especially when the Israelis were warmly welcomed by the authorities of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates following agreements that normalized relations.

There has been controversy and conflict between Israel and the Palestinians for decades. The Palestinians think that these agreements are a betrayal of them and are as if their Arab comrades have stabbed them in the back.

Prince Turkey al-Faisal began his talk by describing the notion of 'a nation of Israel's peace-loving and high moral values' as a far more dark Palestinian reality under 'Western colonial power'.

Prince Turkey al-Faisal said that "Israel held the Palestinians in captivity, citing security reasons where the elderly, men and women are rotting in a way without any justice." They are demolishing homes and killing anyone they want.''

Prince Turkey al-Faisal also condemned "Israel's undeclared stockpile of nuclear weapons and the Israeli government's attempts to weaken Saudi Arabia".

Prince Turkey al-Faisal reiterated Saudi Arabia's official stand that the solution to the problem lies in implementing the 'Arab Peace Initiative'.

In the Saudi Arabia-sponsored 'Arab Peace Initiative' agreement in 2002, in 1967, in exchange for all kinds of relations with Arab countries of Israel, the territory occupied by Israel was sought to be given the status of Palestinian country.

He said, "You cannot cure open wound with painkillers".

Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi said immediately after the talk by Prince Turkey al-Faisal, "I would like to express my regret on the remarks of the Saudi delegates." I don't think that the words and changes that are happening in his words are seen in the Middle East.''

Israeli Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi reiterated the Israeli stand, saying that "Palestinians are responsible for the lack of a peace settlement". We have a choice about the Palestinians whether we solve it or not or just keep on accusing them.''

Dor Gould, a former ambassador to the United Nations and Netanyahu's close-knit Dorn Gould, who was watching the Bahrain Security Summit, said on the remarks of Prince Turkey al-Faisal that many false allegations have been made in the past.

Prince Turki al-Faisal also attacked them.

Saudi vs israel

Saudi Arabia has historically been critical of the treatment of Israel and its Palestinians, and the Arab media has been dismissing Israel as a 'Jewish country'.

In the remote and rural areas of Saudi Arabia, people have seen not only Israel but all the Jewish people as their enemies.

However, many misleading theories about Jews no longer appear. One reason for this is that Saudi people spend a lot of time on the Internet and because of this, they are very aware of the things going on in the world.

Despite this, there is still a doubt about outsiders in a section of the Saudi population. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries have a bizarre history of relations with Palestine.

The Gulf countries have generally been supportive of the Palestinian issue. For decades, they have been helping Palestine politically and financially. However, when Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat supported Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1990, he found it a major fraud.

After Operation Desert Storm, led by the United States and independent in 1991, Kuwait drove out the entire population of Palestinians present in its place and was replaced by thousands of Egyptians.

The old rulers of this region have taken a long time to forget the deception of Arafat.

Farmers, who have been on the borders of the national capital Delhi for nine days in India, are now taking an aggressive stance.

Before the fifth round meeting with the Modi government of the Center on 05 December 2020, the farmers have made it clear that now they will not back down from their demands.

Previously, the farmers who were ready to accept the legal rights of the MSP, now they are not ready to accept anything less than the cancellation of the three laws.

Rajinder Singh, state vice president of Kirti Kisan Union, says, "Our only demand is that all the three laws should be repealed." We will not accept anything less than this. The discussion with the government was done. Now it will be bluntly. Until the government withdraws the law, we will stand here.

The farmer unions of Punjab and Haryana had called for the 'Delhi Chalo' movement on 26-27 November 2020.

The government made every effort to stop the convoy of farmers marching from Punjab to Delhi. Barricades were erected on the roads, dug up roads, water showers, but the farmers reached Delhi, crossing every obstacle.

Since then, every day the movement of farmers is becoming stronger. People from Punjab and Haryana are reaching here from house to house. In view of the increasing number of protesters, the leaders of the peasant movement are also changing their strategy.

In a conversation with news agency ANI, a protesting farmer said, "The government is giving dates repeatedly, all the organizations have unanimously decided that today is the last day of talks."

The farmers say that the government will have to withdraw all the three laws and give in writing that they will continue with the MSP.

The Chairman of Kisan Mahapanchayat Rampal Singh has once again reiterated the demands of the farmers and said that the government will have to withdraw all the three laws and give in writing that the MSP will be continued.

Today, on the meeting with the central government on agricultural laws, Kisan United Front chief Rampal Singh said, "Today, we will fight through the cross, there will not be a daily meeting." There will be nothing else in the meeting today, it will only be for repealing the laws. ''

If there is no solution in the meeting, we will encircle Parliament: farmers

The farmers, who are opposing the new agricultural laws of the central government, are still protesting at the Chilli border on the Delhi-Noida link road.

Farmers say that "If no solution is found in the meeting with the government today, we will surround the Parliament".

The farmers are sitting on a dharna near Gautam Buddha Gate on Noida Link Road, due to which traffic has been stopped on that road.

Delhi Traffic Police has advised people coming from Noida to Delhi to use the DND toll road.

On the other hand, Ghazipur border on the national highway connecting Delhi to Uttar Pradesh has also been closed for traffic due to the protests by farmers.

Only two wheelers are being allowed from Jhatikara border between Delhi Haryana. At the same time, the Tikri and Jharoda borders have been closed.

How are the nights of farmers cutting across the border?

Farmers have blocked the Meerut-Delhi highway near Ghazipur border. Farmers have already blocked the route on the Delhi-Haryana border. And now the movement between Delhi and Uttar Pradesh on the highway has also stopped.

Locals on the Delhi-Haryana border are helping the protesting farmers. He offered tea to these farmers at night.

The fourth round of talks between the farmers and the government was held on 03 December 2020, which failed.

Meanwhile, some charitable institutions are also distributing medicines among the farmers. They say that these medicines can be useful to farmers in an emergency.

Demand to withdraw cases against farmers in Haryana

In Haryana, a delegation of Jannayak Janata Party leaders met state Home Minister Anil Vij on 04 December 2020 and requested that the cases registered against the farmers for the protests be withdrawn.

Digvijay Chautala said, "The Home Minister has assured us that he will look into the matter and discuss it with the Chief Minister."

Iran believes that Israel and an exiled opposition group used a remote controlled weapon to kill its top nuclear scientist Mohsin Fakhrizadeh on 27 November 2020.

During Fakhrizadeh's funeral in Tehran, Iran's security chief Ali Shamkhani said the attackers used electronic equipment and were not present at the scene of the incident.

However, he did not give further information about it. The Iranian Defense Ministry initially said that Fakhrizadeh's car was targeted by some gunmen and he was shot at the same time.

Israel has not yet commented on these Iranian claims. Fakhrizadeh played a key role in Iran's nuclear program in the early 2000s.

The most important thing is that recently Israel had told Fakhrizadeh that he is engaged in developing Iran's secret nuclear weapon.

Iran has always been saying that its nuclear program is not for developing weapons. Fakhrizadeh's funeral was held on the campus of Iran's Ministry of Defense in Tehran. Some remains of funerals were handed over to a cemetery in northern Tehran.

Iran's official TV showed that soldiers and senior officers were moving the Fakhrizadeh's coffin wrapped in the Iranian national flag. These included intelligence minister Mahmood Alawi, Revolutionary Corps Commander General Hussein Salami and Atomic Program Head Ali Akbar Salehi offering prayers in Fakhrizadeh's tribute.

Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Admiral Shamkhani said at Fakhrizadeh's funeral program that Iranian intelligence and security services had foreseen the plot of Fakhrizadeh's assassination.

Shamkhani said, "Necessary measures were taken to protect them, but the enemies used a whole new way. This murder has been carried out in a professional and special manner. Unfortunately our enemies were successful in this. It was a very complex mission because it uses electronic equipment. No one was present at the scene of the incident.

Admiral Shamkhani said that some clues have been found of the perpetrators of this murder. He said, "It has definitely been involved with the Jewish regime and the Mossad-led Iranian opposition group Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MKO)."

Mossad is the intelligence agency of Israel and has been used for Jewish rule of Israel. The MKO is an outcast opposition faction of Iran that opposes the structure of the current government in the country. The statement came from Iran when the Fars news agency reported the use of remote-controlled machine guns in the killing of Fakhrizadeh.

According to Arabic-language Al-Alam TV report, such a weapon is used through satellite control. On 27 November 2020, when the Iranian nuclear scientist was killed, the Defense Ministry said that in East Tehran, armed militants attacked Fakhrizadeh's car.

The ministry had said that Fakhrizadeh was shot in the crossfire between his security guards and the attackers and died during this time. Photos posted on social media show debris and blood strewn with a car riddled with bullets.

At Fakhrizadeh's funeral on 30 November 2020, Iran's Defense Minister General Aamir Hatami reiterated the resolution that the assassination would be avenged.

Aamir said, "The enemies know and as a soldier I am telling them that the people of Iran will answer everyone."

The Iranian Defense Minister said that Fakhrizadeh was doing important work in the Organization of Defense Innovation and Research. Iran is working here for nuclear security.

In Persian this organization is called SPND. The Iranian Defense Minister said that SPND's budget will be doubled so that the path of 'martyr doctor' can be achieved more quickly.

Iran's media emphasizes two things. The first is to avenge the assassination of the Iranian scientist, and the second is that Iran should not be deceived by Israel because it wants to increase tensions and ruin Iran's nuclear program.

India has rejected the proposal passed in the meeting of foreign ministers of member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an organization of Islamic countries. Kashmir has also been mentioned in this proposal.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs stated that India's reference in the resolution passed in the OIC is factually incorrect, unreasonable and inappropriate.

There was a meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) of the OIC on 27 and 28 November 2020 in Niamey, the capital of Niger, and Kashmir is also mentioned in the resolution passed in this meeting.

Pakistan is also a member of the OIC. Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi attended the meeting and raised the issue of Kashmir loudly.

Pakistan is happy with the mention of Kashmir in the resolution passed in the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the OIC. This proposal is being called Niamey Declaration and Pakistan has welcomed it.

India ended Kashmir's special status on August 5, 2019. Since then Pakistan has been raising this issue on the international stage but so far there has been no concrete success. OIC has also not been very active about this till now.

Regarding the proposal passed in the CFM of OIC, India's Foreign Ministry has said in its statement, "We are factually incorrect, inappropriate and unreasonably passed in the OIC's 47th CFM in Niger's capital Niamey, India. Let's dismiss the mention of We have always said that the OIC has no right to speak on India's internal affairs. Jammu and Kashmir is also an integral part of India and the OIC has no right to speak on it.''

India has said in its statement, "It is regrettable that the OIC is allowing any one country to misuse its platform." The country that the OIC is allowing to do so has a disgusting record of religious tolerance, extremism and injustice with minorities. That country is always engaged in anti-India propaganda. We are seriously advising the OIC to refrain from saying such a thing about India in future.''

Kashmir has also been included in the resolution passed at the meeting of foreign ministers of the OIC member countries in Niamey.

However, Kashmir was not included in the OIC's CFM agenda. It is being said that due to the stubbornness of Pakistan, it has been included only. The resolution said that the OIC's stand on the Kashmir dispute has always been that it should be resolved peacefully as per the UN Security Council resolution.

However, it is also being said that the mention of Kashmir in the proposal of OIC is a ritual and it is not surprising for India. Despite the pressure from Pakistan, Kashmir was not included as a separate agenda in this meeting.

The OIC is dominated by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Pakistan's relations with these two countries are deteriorating. Saudi Arabia wants Pakistan to pay its debts quickly. Especially since when Pakistani PM Imran Khan tried to create an organization with Turkey, Iran and Malaysia parallel to the OIC. Last week, the UAE temporarily banned the issuance of new visas for Pakistani nationals.

Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi also raised the issue separately in the OIC meeting with the UAE Foreign Minister but no concrete assurance has been received so far.

Is Kashmir a victory in the Niamey Declaration?

This meeting was held in Abu Dhabi in March 2019. In this meeting, the then Foreign Minister of India Sushma Swaraj was also called by the UAE.

Pakistan had opposed the calling of Sushma Swaraj and boycotted the inauguration ceremony. Sushma Swaraj then addressed the CFM meeting of the OIC.

There was no mention of Kashmir in the resolution passed in this meeting. It welcomed the decision of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan in which he sent back Wing Commander Abhinandan of India.

Kashmir is nothing new in the proposal that comes after the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of OIC. It has been mentioned before also. This time the proposal is being called Niame Declaration. Its operative paragraph eight states that the OIC wants the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute to be peaceful as per the UN Security Council resolution and it has always been the same.

This was the first meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the OIC after the end of special status of Jammu and Kashmir on 5 August 2019. Pakistan hoped that this time a strong statement would be issued against India, but this did not happen.

Pakistan's Ambassador to India Abdul Basit has posted a video on Twitter and he has said many things about Niamey Declaration.

Basit has said, "This was the first meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the OIC after August 5 and we were hopeful that some strong statement about India would be issued." We felt that India's decision would be condemned but it did not happen. There is nothing very happy for Pakistan in the Declaration.

He said, "The way Kashmir is concerned about Palestine, Azerbaijan and terrorism in this Declaration does not belong to Kashmir. Compared to last year, we can be happy that this time, at least it has been mentioned. India should have condemned what it did on August 5, but it did not happen. Niger has good relations with India and the convention center in which this conference took place is made with the help of India only.

The Maldives is also a member of the OIC. Maldives Foreign Minister Abdullah Shahid attended the meeting. Abdullah posted a tweet on November 27, 2020 in which pictures of that conference center in Niamey were posted. With these pictures, Abdullah wrote in his tweet, "OIC's 47th CFM meeting is being held at the beautiful Mahatma Gandhi International Conference Center in Niamey. When the world is facing many challenges and crises, these can be faced together. ''

However, Pakistan is considering its victory with the mention of Kashmir. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry has tweeted, "The inclusion of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in the Niamey Declaration suggests that the OIC has always stood by the Kashmir issue."

Ever since India abolished the special status of Kashmir, Pakistan has been calling for a meeting of the foreign ministers of the OIC member countries but to no avail.

In August 2020, Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi had threatened to withdraw from the OIC and raise the Kashmir issue. This angered Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had to issue an explanation. But by then the situation had deteriorated and Pakistan Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa had to visit Saudi to handle it.

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani has said that the killing of the country's senior nuclear scientist will not slow down the country's nuclear program.

Hasan Rouhani accused Israel of killing top nuclear scientist Mohsin Fakhrizadeh and said that these steps show how upset he is and how much he hates us.

Iran had earlier appealed to the UN Secretary-General and the Security Council to condemn the killing of its top nuclear scientist Mohsin Fakhrizadeh.

According to the information received so far, Fakhrizadeh was ambushed by gunmen in the city of Absard, adjacent to the capital Tehran. However, no news of any attacker has been caught so far.

Ambassador to the United Nations of Iran Majid Takht Ravanchi said the killing of Mohsin Fakhrizadeh was a clear violation of international laws, which was carried out with the aim of creating unrest in the region.

At the same time, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has appealed for restraint in this matter.

According to Reuters, Guterres spokesman Farhan Haq said on 27 November 2020, "We have noted the news of the killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist near Tehran today. We urge restraint and avoid any action which may increase tension in the area. ''

Other Iranian authorities have accused Israel of murder and warned of revenge.

Israel has not yet responded to this, but has previously accused Mohsin Fakhrizadeh of being the mastermind of a secret nuclear weapons program.

What is the whole matter?

Iran's Ministry of Defense informed that one of its top nuclear scientist Mohsin Fakhrizadeh has been killed. After the attack Fakhrizadeh was taken to a local hospital but his life could not be saved.

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Jawad Zarif condemned Fakhrizadeh's murder, calling it 'a state-sponsored terror incident'.

Intelligence agencies of Western countries believe that Mohsin Fakhrizadeh was behind Iran's intelligence program.

Foreign diplomats called him 'the father of the Iranian atomic bomb'. Iran has been saying that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Four nuclear scientists from Iran were killed between 2010 and 2012, and Iran blamed Israel for this.

How was Mohsin Fakhrizadeh murdered?

Iran's Defense Ministry issued a statement on 27 November 2020 saying, "Armed militants targeted the car carrying Mohsin Fakhrizadeh, the head of the Ministry of Defense's research and innovation department."

According to the ministry, "He was badly injured in the skirmish between the militants and Fakhrizadeh's bodyguards and was taken to a local hospital but unfortunately all attempts by the medical team to save him failed."

According to Iranian news agency Fars, the eyewitnesses first heard the sound of explosions and then firing from machine guns.

According to the agency, eyewitnesses have also said that three-four extremists were killed.

Is Israel involved in this murder?

Iran's Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif tweeted, "Terrorists have killed a prominent Iranian scientist today. These rude actions, which have serious indications of Israel being at hand, reflect the assassins' intention to fight. ''

Zarif said, "Iran urges international communities, especially the European Union, to end their shameful double stance and condemn this terrorist move."

He said in another tweet, "Iran is once again a victim of terrorism. Terrorists have brutally murdered a great Iranian scholar. Our heroes have always faced terrorism for stability and security in the world and our region. The punishment of those who do wrong is the law of Allah.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of the Iranian Army has said that Iran will avenge the killing of its scientist.

Major General Hussein Salami of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said, "There is a clear attempt to stop us from accessing modern science by killing nuclear scientists."

Who was Mohsin Fakhrizadeh?

Mohsin Fakhrizadeh was Iran's foremost nuclear scientist and a senior IRGC official. According to security experts from Western countries, he was very powerful in Iran and had a major role in Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Israel claimed to have obtained some intelligence documents in the year 2018, according to which Mohsin started Iran's nuclear weapons program.

At the time, Netanyahu gave Mohsin Fakhrizadeh a key scientific agreement for Iran's nuclear program in a press conference, saying, "Remember that name."

In 2015, the New York Times compared Mohsin Fakhrizadeh to J. Robert Openheimer. Openheimer was the scientist who led the Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic bomb during World War II.

Israel has not yet reacted to Fakhrizadeh's assassination.

Why was Mohsin Fakhrizadeh targeted?

Mohsin Fakhrizadeh was certainly an important figure as head of the Department of Research and Innovation in the Iranian Ministry of Defense. This is the reason why Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in a warning tone two years ago, 'Remember his name'.

Since the US split from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Iran has moved forward. Iran has accumulated reserves of low enrichment uranium and has cultivated uranium higher than the level set in the agreement.

Iranian officials have been saying from the beginning that enriched uranium can be destroyed, but it is very difficult to eradicate the work done towards research and development.

Ali Asghar Sutlaniya, former Ambassador of Iran to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), recently said, "We cannot go back."

If Mohsin Fakhrizadeh was really as important to Iran's nuclear program as Israel is alleged to have been in his accusations, his assassination probably suggests that someone is trying to rein in Iran's momentum.

America's newly elected President Joe Biden said that he would return to the Iran nuclear deal after coming to power. The murder of Mohsin Fakhrizadeh could also be an attempt to make any such possibility difficult.

In an important decision, the Allahabad High Court in an order dated 11 November 2020 stated that the right to live with the person of their choice, whatever their religion, is a natural element of the right to life and personal liberty.

It has been 15 days since the order, but its copy has been available this week, after which it is being discussed a lot. The bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agrawal of Allahabad High Court has given this important decision.

On the orders given in Priyanshi alias Samreen and others, vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, and Noor Jahan Begum alias Anjali Mishra and others vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court stated in its remarks, "Any of these Even the order has not seen the right of two mature people to choose their own freedom. "

The court ordered, "We do not consider the decisions given in the cases of Noor Jahan and Priyanshi to be good law".

Let us see what important things the Allahabad High Court has done in its decision…

- The court said in its order, "We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat as Hindus and Muslims. Instead we see them as two adult people who are living together peacefully and happily by their will and choice. ''
- "The right to live with the person of their choice, whatever their religion, is rooted in the right to life and personal liberty. Interference in personal relations will be a serious violation of the freedom of two people to make choices."
- The court has said, "The decision of an adult person to live with a person of his choice is tied to the right of a person and when this right is violated, then it is a fundamental right of the person to live life and the fundamental right to personal liberty." Violates because it contains Article 21 principles of the Constitution of freedom of election, choice of partner and living with dignity. ''
- The court in its judgment referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shafeen Jahan vs. Ashokan KM. The Allahabad High Court said that the Supreme Court has consistently respected the freedom of an adult person.
- Allahabad High Court also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Vahini v. Government of India. Apart from this, the court also cited the decision in Nand Kumar v. Government of Kerala and said that it is clear in these decisions that the adult person has the freedom to make his choice.
- The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in KS Puttaswamy vs Government of India regarding the right to privacy and said that the right to choose a partner has nothing to do with caste, creed or religion and this article-21 The integral part lies in living life and personal freedom.
- Commenting on the decisions in Nur Jahan and other similar cases, the court said that ignoring the will of an adult person would not only be contrary to the freedom of elections, but it would also threaten the principle of unity in diversity.
- On the decisions in the Priyanshi and Nur Jahan cases, the court said that in any of these decisions, two mature people have to choose their partner or whom they want to live with. The issue of freedom to choose it and the issue related to freedom has not been taken into consideration. The court further said that the decisions in Noor Jahan and Priyanshi cases are not good in terms of law.
- The bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agrawal of Allahabad High Court remarked in this same order, "We are unable to understand that if the law allows two gay people to live together peacefully, neither can any person Neither any family or even the state has the right to object to two adult people living together at their will. ''

Allahabad High Court's decision and background

Advocate Arvind Kumar Tripathi in Allahabad High Court says, "The FIR dismissed in the recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court is based on whether two adults can live together under Article-21?"

Tripathi says that "As far as marriage is concerned, marriage has nothing to do with religion." It is related to desire. And desire is related to article-21 Liberty. In this case, there is more clarity in this decision compared to earlier decisions.

Supreme Court Advocate Shashwat Anand says that the Allahabad High Court has a very good judgment and it has made the basis of freedom of privacy and freedom of will.

The background of the case is that a petition was filed in the Allahabad High Court on behalf of Salamat Ansari and three others. Salamat Ansari and his wife Priyanka Kharwar alias Aaliya along with two others had sought the dismissal of the FIR lodged against them in the High Court.

In this case Priyanka had converted to Alia and converted and married Salamat Ansari. In protest, Priyanka's father had filed an FIR. Sections 7 and 8 of the Poxo Act were also imposed in this FIR, including 363, 366, 352. Salamat, his brother and his mother were accused in this.

The court observed the birth date of Priyanka aka Alia and it was found that she is an adult. Anand says that in such a situation all the acts of Poxo were dismissed. At the same time, the court admitted that the forced sections have been imposed to trap them.

It was argued in the High Court on behalf of Salamat Ansari that Salamat Ansari and Priyanka Kharwar aka Alia are adults and are eligible to marry. This side said that after Priyanka left her Hindu identity and converted to Islam, both of them married Muslim customs on 19.8.2019.

Both people have been living together as husband and wife for the past one year. They both said that Priyanka's father had lodged this FIR to end her marriage with the wrong intention and since both of them have not committed any crime, this FIR should be dismissed.

The other side said that conversion to marriage was prohibited and there was no legal recognition of such marriage. In such a situation, the court should not give any relief to these people.

Anand says that the government had demanded not to give relief to Salamat based on the last two decisions. Anand says, "The court said that when these two adult people have decided to live together, then we should respect article-21." With this, the court dismissed this FIR.

Nur Jahan and Priyanshi cases

In the case of Priyanshi in September 2020, the single bench referred to the case of Nur Jahan Begum alias Anjali Mishra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh in 2014, stating that mere conversion to marriage was unacceptable.

In the Nur Jahan Begum case, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petitions filed for the need of protection as a married couple. In this case too, the girl left Hinduism and converted to Islam and then married.

Four other similar cases also came before the court.

In these cases women were unable to prove their alleged conversion because they failed to prove their understanding of Islam. In such a situation, the court ordered that these alleged marriages are illegal because it was done after a conversion that cannot be justified according to the law.

Anand says, "But, the Allahabad High Court has said in its judgment that once it was proved that both the people getting married are adults, the court should not have gone to their denomination."

In its recent decision, Allahabad High Court has referred to similar decisions in its previous cases.

Yogi government's ordinance to stop forced conversion

However, in spite of the Allahabad High Court order, the Yogi Adityanath government of Uttar Pradesh has approved the 'Uttar Pradesh Law Against Religion Transformation Prohibition Ordinance, 2020' on 24 November 2020.

According to this law, 'forced conversion' will be punishable in Uttar Pradesh. It can be imprisoned from one year to 10 years and a fine ranging from 15 thousand to 50 thousand rupees.

According to this ordinance of the Yogi government, if 'illegal conversion' happens to a minor or women belonging to a scheduled caste or tribe, then there will be a fine of three to 10 years and a fine of Rs 25,000.

Advocate in the Allahabad High Court, Vinod Mishra, says, "The government has tried to curb forced conversions or other illegal activities through this law. The government wants to curb the alleged 'love jihad'".

Will a confrontation arise?

Can a conflict situation arise in the coming days between the Uttar Pradesh government's law to stop 'illegal conversion' and the Allahabad High Court's decision?

Advocate Arvind Kumar Tripathi in the High Court on this issue says, "It would not be right to say that because the ordinance passed by the government which has not yet become the subject of judicial review. It did not say until the case is filed on it." It is possible that these two decisions may hit each other or not. "

Tripathi says, "The interesting thing is that the alleged love jihad created by the Uttar Pradesh government has introduced this ordinance will not survive the judicial review. But, when it is challenged, the situation will be clear."

Advocate Shashwat Anand in the Supreme Court says that the law brought by the Yogi government is actually on forced conversion and it would not be right to call it the law of 'Love Jihad'.

He says, "The ordinance of the Uttar Pradesh government is linked to forced conversions. Now, if this law is misused, this decision of the Allahabad High Court will work as a wall."

He says that in such cases one side will say that it is forcible conversion while the other party will say it by consent. In such a situation, the Yogi will act as a decision of the High Court on the wrong use of the law of the government.

In the coming time, it will be clear that how will the Allahabad High Court's decision affect the ordinance brought by the Yogi government?

Disclaimer: ''The current law of India does not define the word 'love jihad'. No case of 'Love Jihad' has been reported by any central agency.''

There is a special reference to such disclaimers at the beginning of the report. Many political leaders are using the term, but the above sentence is part of the reply to a starred question in the Lok Sabha on 4 February 2020 from the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Shri Kishan Reddy.

The Yogi Adityanath government of Uttar Pradesh has approved an ordinance against inter-religious marriage. Four other state governments of the Bharatiya Janata Party have spoken of bringing similar ordinances.

There is a strong debate on this issue in India.

The international media has also placed on its pages the opposition to the ordinance of this alleged forced inter-religious marriage (which the BJP calls Love Jihad).

The Strat Times newspaper in Singapore has underlined in one of its reports that the five states that talk of bringing "love jihad" are those where the BJP has governments. According to the newspaper, the ordinance brought in Uttar Pradesh and the proposal on it in other four states will give rise to the issue of "Love Jihad".

The newspaper has given a lot of space to the statements of Yogi Adityanath in his report. An ordinance on this has been approved in Uttar Pradesh on 24 November 2020.

The newspaper prominently featured a statement dated 31 October 2020 of the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister. The newspaper wrote, "Yogi Adityanath, a Hindu priest who is the Chief Minister of India's largest populous state Uttar Pradesh, says in an election meeting on 31 October 2020 that the government should take a decision to stop 'Love Jihad'". Has been We give warning to those who hide their identity and insult our sisters. If you do not hawk, your funeral will be done soon. ''

A US media outlet named 'US News' wrote in its report on the latest ordinance from the Lucknow Dateline, "The Indian state blamed forced conversions for marriage".

Citing critics, the report reads, "Critics say that the unlawful proselytizing ordinance approved by the Yogi's cabinet is aimed at separating India's 17 crore Muslims from the mainstream."

The newspaper has also included a statement by Trinamool Congress MP Nusrat Jahan in this report in which he has said that there is no such thing as "Love Jihad" and this is only a political ploy of BJP.

Al-Jazeera has given it a place on its website and many newspapers of western countries have also published this news.

Most media outlets are also sharing issues related to this in India. Al-Jazeera cited an incident in October 2020 in which the Tanishq jewelry store had to remove an advertisement showing a Hindu daughter-in-law with her Muslim husband.

The firstpost website reported on the growing intolerance in India by linking the controversy over a kiss scene inside a temple with the ordinance of "Love Jihad" in Mira Nair's film A Suitable Boy, which was shown on Netflix.

In this kissing scene, a Muslim youth is seen kissing his Hindu girlfriend inside a temple against which some Hindu organizations have filed a police complaint. An FIR has been registered against some Netflix officials in Madhya Pradesh.

what is love jihad?

Hindu right-wing organizations call 'Love Jihad' a love marriage in which a Muslim man marries a Hindu woman and forces her to convert to Islam. If the opposite is true, if a Muslim woman marries a Hindu man, then some Hindu institutions are silent on this, some organizations strongly support such marriages.

The Indian government and private social institutions do not have figures for these marriages, but according to one estimate, such marriages are less than three percent.

In several reports of government agencies, the allegations of 'jihad' in marriage between a Hindu woman and a Muslim man have been found to be wrong, but in spite of this the five state governments of BJP are resorting to the law to stop it.

Where and when was the word first used? It is difficult to say, but around 2009, Karnataka and Kerala find an example of the use of the term, where some Hindu and Christian institutions refer to the conspiracy by Muslim men to cheat and marry Hindu or Christian women to convert to Islam. has been done.

In India, inter-religious marriages are held under the Special Marriage Act, which requires the court to register a marriage and before that the court issues a month's notice so that anyone can object to this marriage and tell the court.

For years before the term "love jihad" was practiced, right-wing Hindu institutions had been protesting such marriages in courts in which couples were given dhamikas, but this was not done so publicly.

Hindu-Muslim marriages began to be openly opposed to the campaign against "Love Jihad", especially in Uttar Pradesh, which human rights institutions and the media have described as an attack on the fundamental rights of a citizen.

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan completed his first visit to Afghanistan on 19 November 2020 where he met Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and agreed to intensify efforts to increase the transfer of intelligence and closer cooperation.

According to Pakistan's official news service Radio Pakistan, Imran Khan and Ashraf Ghani reiterated their commitment to take immediate steps to establish peace in Afghanistan at a press conference in Kabul.

On Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan's visit to neighboring Afghanistan, analysts say that it will take time to restore trust and end differences between the two countries but it is necessary for improving relations between the two countries.

According to an official statement, Prime Minister Imran Khan, who visited Kabul for the first time in Afghanistan, spoke of bilateral relations, global peace and regional development.

On this, many commentators of Pakistan say that Pakistan has done much to establish peace in Afghanistan on its own behalf and now Afghanistan should do the same.

Analyst Imtiaz Gul says the peace agreement was signed after successful efforts in Doha between the US and the Taliban due to Pakistan's efforts.

He said that the recent visit to Afghanistan from Prime Minister Imran Khan is a link in this regard.

He said that Pakistan has agreed to end violence in Afghanistan from day one and Prime Minister Imran Khan's visit to Afghanistan has also sent a message to the Taliban to leave the path of violence.

Imtiaz Gul says that lack of trust cannot be eliminated or reduced in a single stroke, but both sides need to take steps to restore mutual trust.

He said that Pakistan has allowed thousands of stranded containers on the Pak-Afghan border to move forward in the last few days. The Pakistani government has also introduced a six-month multiple visa for Afghan nationals.

Seven rounds of negotiations have also been held for a trade agreement between the two countries.

Imtiaz Gul says, "Afghanistan has more inclination towards India, so all countries should play their part for a stable peace in the region."

On 19 November 2020, Prime Minister Imran Khan has said that we will help fulfill the expectations of the Government of Afghanistan to build trust.

On the other hand, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, while welcoming the visit of Imran Khan, has given it an important agreement to increase trust and cooperation.

Senior journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai says that there are differences in many matters between the two countries and relations will not improve until they end.

He said, "The latest statement from the Government of Pakistan has been that Afghanistan's land is being used for incidents of violence in Pakistan, but the Afghan government has denied these statements."

Even before this, Pakistan has been accusing India of using Afghanistan's land for violence incidents in Pakistan.

The Afghan government has also been told to stop India from using its land. However, both India and Afghanistan continue to deny the allegations.

Rahimullah Yusufzai says that Afghanistan has not accepted the border with Pakistan till date.

He says, "Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah also visited Pakistan, but despite this the two countries have not been able to trust each other."

He said that both countries must speed up their efforts to eradicate stable peace and violence in the region.

The US will withdraw two thousand troops from Afghanistan by February 2021, and in such circumstances, closer cooperation between the two neighboring countries is necessary for the sake of peace.

Rahimullah Yusufzai says that Pakistan will benefit more by increasing trade between the two countries. The more the business between the two countries increases, the more the common citizens will benefit.

He said that trade between the two countries could reduce food prices, which would give some relief to the people.

Yusufzai says, "Afghanistan wants to do business with India through the Wagah border, but Pakistan is not ready to do so.''