Why India can't deny Pakistan entry to multilateral sporting events on its soil
The charter's Rule 44 specifically prohibits National Olympic Committees from excluding athletes based on "racial, religious or political reasons".Failure to grant visas can lead to "international isolation and loss of hosting rights for future events."India has borne the brunt of this just six years ago when Pakistani shooters were denied visas to compete in the ISSF shooting World Cup, which was also an Olympic qualifying event.An irate IOC didn't just halt discussions with India on hosting rights of all future events, it also revoked the Olympic qualifying status of the 25m rapid fire pistol competition in which the Pakistani shooters were to compete.India's actions were driven by the outrage against the Pulwama terror attack in which 40 CRPF personnel were killed by a Pakistan-based terrorist group.The talks on future events resumed only after India gave specific written guarantees that no such discrimination would take place going forward.The IOC had recommended international federations to "neither award or hold sports events in India until guarantees are obtained".A year before that, India had denied visas to boxers from Kosovo in the World Boxing Championship for women.Given that the country is pushing ahead aggressively with its plans to have the 2036 Olympics in Ahmedabad, any move to stop Pakistani athletes in multilateral events would have severely harmed its prospects."It is not a simple situation. If you want to present yourself as a nation capable of hosting global events, you can't stop athletes from any country from coming. But bilaterals is different and we can always avoid Pakistan in any such engagement," a ministry source had said on Thursday while explaining the reasons behind government's decision.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Maharashtra politics has let down Marathi-speaking people
It all began in February 1956 when the States Reorganisation Commission led by Justice Fazal Ali, with K M Panikkar and H N Kunzru as members, recommended a bilingual Bombay State, including Maharashtra and Gujarat, with Bombay its capital, thereby denying Maharashtra's exclusive claim over the city. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Home Minister Vallabhbhai Patel were against the restructuring of states on a linguistic basis, but the death of Potti Sreeramulu, the Telugu activist who went on a fast to press for the demand to create Andhra Pradesh, compelled them to alter their stand. But they were unwilling to concede Maharashtra's right over the city of Mumbai. The apparently adamant stand of Nehru and Patel triggered independent India's first all-party coalition against the mighty Congress party, which was accused, rightly so, of being anti-federal. It necessitated the formation of the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti, which came into being in February 1956, the first all-party anti-Congress front of independent India that had the likes of communist Sripad Amrut Dange, aka Bhai Dange, socialist S M Joshi and activists such as Keshav Sitaram 'Prabodhankar' Thackeray and other well-known Maharashtrians. With the 70th anniversary of the formation of the Samiti, which successfully led the agitation demanding an independent state for Marathi-speaking people with Mumbai as its capital, a few months away, Maharashtra is witnessing another all-party mobilisation against the allegedly anti-federal Centre. The difference between now and then, however, is that the once-strong omnipresent Congress at the Centre has been replaced by the BJP. There are two striking similarities between the situations then and now. Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, or Guruji, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief then, had extended open support to Nehru and Patel in their initial stand that was against states' reorganisation on the basis of language. The RSS and Nehru-Patel, strange as it may sound, were on the same page — both believed that linguistic divisions could lead to fragmentation and instability and become a threat to the integration of the newly independent nation. This explains the BJP's insistence on Hindi. Spoken predominantly in the north Indian states, Hindi remains central to the saffron camp's grand design of 'nation building', which envisages Oneness — one nation, one religion and one language (and one political party, one leader, BJP critics might add). It also explains Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis's recent political experiment to bring in Hindi as the third language in school education from the primary level. The move backfired but, on the way, it galvanised the Opposition, which wasted no time in forming an all-party front, à la 1956, to oppose the BJP. Maharashtra is crucial as the only state south of the Vindhyas for the RSS's long-envisaged plan of Hindi-isation of India. Had Fadnavis, a true swayamsevak, succeeded in making Hindi mandatory from school level, Maharashtra would have been the first big state outside the cow belt to embrace the north Indian language. United in thwarting his efforts were the Thackeray brothers, Uddhav and Raj, who buried their hatchet, if only for the time being, to challenge the ever-so-strong Centre, taking a cue perhaps from their grandfather Prabodhankar, who had played a significant role in spoiling the Nehru-Patel design 70 years ago. So, like in 1956, there is a Thackeray involved in the current politics of language as well. The 70-year gap between then and now illustrates how Maharashtra politics has let down the Marathi-speaking people. Following the formation of the state of Maharashtra, with Nehru later conceding the state's demand for Mumbai as its capital, the Samiti that spearheaded the agitation against Nehru-Patel was dissolved, and then the Shiv Sena rose. Led by maverick Bal Thackeray, the son of Prabodhankar, it espoused the cause of the Marathi manoos, but it didn't go much further than ensuring lowly jobs for locals in state-run PSUs. Unlike the DMK in Tamil Nadu, the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal or even the Assam Gana Parishad in the Northeast, the Shiv Sena was far from being a pan-Maharashtra party. It was, till a few years ago, confined to Mumbai and the Konkan. It lost its mojo after aggressive Hindutva became the mainstay of politics. The Thackerays, having strayed from the Marathi cause, jumped onto the Hindutva bandwagon. It didn't take much effort for the BJP to first overshadow the Sena and then split it into two. Meanwhile, Raj Thackeray, the Shiv Sena founder's successor in charisma, tried his hand at exploiting Marathi sentiments. Like Thackeray Sr, he, too, lost steam on the way and settled for playing second fiddle to the BJP. Led now by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, it was much easier for the BJP to neutralise the younger Thackeray and make his political outfit, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, redundant. In its zeal to run the state on its own, the BJP's aggressive leadership tried to politically weaken the two Thackerays. The Fadnavis government's ill-timed decision — now rolled back — to introduce (read: Impose) Hindi at school level came in this fraught context. It was nothing short of bowling a full-toss in the death overs for a team battling to stay afloat. The BJP government's move not only rejuvenated the two Thackerays and their two Senas, in the bargain it also sullied the saffron party's anti-federal image further. The BJP now is being compared with the old Delhi-centric, all-powerful Congress. It is certainly not a comparison the BJP would be happy about. Now, like in the Sixties, the issue of Hindi has crossed political boundaries and has taken a Maharashtra vs Might of Delhi turn. In the Sixties, the fall-out of the Samyukta Maharashtra movement was the Congress's defeat in subsequent elections. Will history repeat itself with the BJP, which has replaced Congress now? Only time will answer this question. But meanwhile, like the play Six Characters in Search of an Author by Italian dramatist Luigi Pirandello, Maharashtrians' search for a genuine and honest regional political party that can go beyond hooliganism and thuggery in the name of Marathi manoos continues. The writer is editor, Loksatta
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
India faced 3 adversaries inOp Sindoor: Top general
NEW DELHI: India faced not one but three adversaries during the four-day military confrontation with Pakistan under Operation Sindoor two months ago, a top general said on Friday, putting the spotlight on the crucial battle support provided to Islamabad by allies Beijing and Ankara, and the lessons learnt from the May 7-10 clash. Deputy chief of Army Staff Lt General Rahul R. Singh speaks during a conference-cum-exhibition on 'New Age Military Technologies: Industry Capabilities & Way Forward' organised by FICCI, in New Delhi, on Friday. (PTI) Beijing saw the confrontation as a 'live lab' to test the performance of the weapons and systems supplied by it to Pakistan, and the Chinese actions reflected its strategy against India of 'killing with a borrowed knife' (using Pakistan for its own gains), said Lieutenant General Rahul R Singh, deputy chief of army staff (capability development and sustenance). China also gave real-time inputs to Pakistan about India's weapon deployments, he said. Singh also explained why Pakistan asked for a ceasefire. 'Because there was a punch that was ready, and they realised that the hidden punch, in case it comes through, Pakistan would be in a very, very bad condition.' He was likely referring to the current leadership's muscular response to terror strikes. Previously, the understanding was that Pakistan sued for peace after Indian strikes on several of its military and air bases on the morning of May 10, but it was always suspected that New Delhi had a larger strike in the works, perhaps with the Indian Navy also getting involved. Singh's comment is the first official acknowledgement of that. 'So few lessons that I thought I must flag as far as Operation Sindoor is concerned --- firstly, one border, two adversaries. So we saw Pakistan on one side, but adversaries were two. And I would say actually three. Pakistan was the front face. We had China providing all possible support… Turkey also played a very important role in providing the type of support that was there,' said Singh at a conference on New Age Military Technologies organised by industry grouping FICCI. This is the first time that top levels of the Indian military have detailed the role of China and Turkey during the four-day military clash, the most intense conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours in decades. India launched Operation Sindoor in the early hours of May 7 and struck nine terror and military installations in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) as a response to the Pahalgam terror strike in which 26 people were shot dead by terrorists. It sparked a four-day military confrontation with Pakistan involving fighter jets, missiles, drones, long-range weapons and heavy artillery before the two sides reached an understanding on stopping all military action on May 10. 'And it's (Chinese support) is no surprise because if you were to look at statistics in the last five years, 81% of the military hardware that Pakistan is getting is all Chinese. And China, of course, (used) the good old dictum 'kill by a borrowed knife'…So he would rather use the neighbour to cause pain, rather than getting involved in the mud-slinging match on the northern borders,' Singh said, referring to the long-standing issue of an undefined border between India and China . Indian air defence systems and radars gathered considerable information on Chinese-origin equipment, particularly the J-10 and JF-17 fighter jets, PL-15 beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile and HQ-9 long-range air defence system. This was the first known use in combat for most of this equipment. Singh highlighted how China evaluated the performance of the weaponry supplied by it to Pakistan. 'China, perhaps, has seen that he is able to test his weapons against, say, various other weapon systems that are like a live lab, which is available. That is something we have to be cognisant about,' he said. Pakistan was getting real-time inputs from China about the positioning of Indian weapons during the clash, Singh said. 'When the DGMO level talks were going on, Pakistan was actually mentioning that 'we know that your such and such important vector is primed and ready for action and I would request you to perhaps pull it back.' So he was getting live inputs from China.' This is the first time that India has confirmed details of real-time coordination between Beijing and Islamabad. The Congress was quick to cite Singh's comments and demand a discussion on India-China relations in the Parliament. 'Lt Gen Singh has revealed some details of the extraordinary ways by which China helped the Pakistan Air Force. This is the same China which completely destroyed the status quo in Ladakh five years ago but to which Prime Minister Modi gave a public clean chit on June 19, 2020. For five years, the INC has been demanding a discussion on the full gamut of India-China relations in the Parliament. The Modi government has consistently refused to have such a debate,' said Congress MP Jairam Ramesh, who is also the party's general secretary in-charge communications. The Congress will continue to make this demand in the forthcoming monsoon session of Parliament, and the government must agree so that a consensus can be built for a collective response to the geopolitical and economic challenges that China poses to India --- directly and through Pakistan, Ramesh said. In his lecture, the army's deputy chief touched upon Turkey's role too, especially the drones supplied by it to Pakistan. 'Bayraktar (drones), of course, he (Turkey) has been giving (to Pakistan) from before. We saw numerous other drones also coming in, landing in the face of war, during the war, along with trained sort of individuals who were there.' India's population centres were not quite targeted by Pakistan during the skirmish but, in the next round, the country must be prepared for that, Singh said. 'For that, more and more air defence, more and more counter rocket artillery, drone sort of a system has to be prepared for which we have to move very fast,' he said. The defining thing about Operation Sindoor was that the strategic messaging by the country's leadership was unambiguous, he said. 'You cross the redlines and there will be action. There would be punitive action if required. There is no scope of absorbing the pain the way we did a few years ago,' he said, likely a reference to terror strikes in the past to which India did not respond militarily. India has now made it explicit that any sub-conventional attack (such as a terror strike) will be responded through conventionally (a military strike). He said stopping the war at the appropriate time was a masterstroke by India. 'An important consideration was that we should always be on top of the escalation ladder. When we reach a political military objective, we should try and put a stop to it. So a lot of naysayers say, why did we stop now? So war is easy to initiate, but it's very difficult to control. I would say that was a masterstroke to stop the war.'
Deccan Herald
40 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
India, Trinidad & Tobago ink six pacts to expand ties
Modi landed in Port of Spain on Thursday in the second leg of his five-nation tour. It is the first bilateral visit by an Indian prime minister to this Caribbean island nation since 1999.
