Pakistan Army once sent a warship to capture this scenic Indian island in..., but Pakistani soldiers ran away due to...
India-Pakistan war: India and Pakistan have essentially been at war since the latter was carved out after India's independence from the British in 1947. But did you know that shortly after the partition, Pakistan Army made an effort to capture Lakshadweep, the scenic island located in the Arabian Sea? When Pakistan tried to capture Lakshadweep island?
After the 1947 partition which led to the formation of Pakistan, India focused its efforts to integrate the numerous princely states which had given the right by the British to join either country, and almost all of these small monarchies chose to become a part of the Indian Union. But, while India was focused on integrating major princely states into the Union, the tiny little island of Lakshadweep went unnoticed, and Pakistan found an opportunity to try and capture it, as the majority population was Muslim.
In late 1947, Liaquat Ali Khan, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, plotted to capture Lakshadweep and sent a warship accompanied by Pakistani Army and Navy to the remote island. The Pakistan Navy had orders to plant the Pakistani flag in Lakshadweep and claim the island if no Indian troops were present. Pakistani warship returned after…
But, India got wind of Pakistan's plans, and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the then Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of India, decided that Pakistan cannot be allowed to capture Lakshadweep, and ordered the Revenue Collector of Travancore to immediately take some soldiers and hoist the tricolour on the island.
The collector did as ordered and hoisted the Indian flag in Lakshadweep. A Pakistani warship arrived at the island shortly after but returned after seeing the tricolour flying on the isle. Thus, Patel's quick-thinking saved Lakshadweep from falling into the hands of Pakistan, and this serene island is now a proud part of the Indian union.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Cabinet okays bill that seeks to ban ‘online money game'
NEW DELHI: Cabinet on Tuesday approved a bill that seeks to ban "online money game", where users pay a fee or deposit money, proposing a maximum three years in jail or fine of up to Rs 1 crore for those involved in offering, encouraging or inducing players to participate, which also extends to banks facilitating these transactions. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now At the same time, Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, which will be introduced in Lok Sabha on Wednesday, seeks to promote e-sports and online social games where no money is involved. A regulator body is planned to oversee the functioning of the sector, sources told TOI. The proposed legislation defines "online money game" as an online game played by a user by paying fees, depositing money or other stakes in expectation of winning. 2 years' jail, ₹50L fine likely for those advertising online games Online social games have been defined as those that don't involve exchange of money, although users may be allowed to pay a subscription or one-time access fee. Govt has proposed the new law considering unregulated online money gaming platforms pose threats to national and economic security as they use digital wallets and cryptocurrencies for money laundering and illicit money transfer, cross-border data flows without compliance of data protection law, sources said. Moreover, offshore entities are seen to be circumventing tax and legal obligations. The proposed legislation also assumes significance as online money gaming poses serious concerns, including addiction among children and youth, mental health issues, financial losses leading to suicides and lack of uniform regulation across states. Law enforcing agencies face problems in tracking and regulating these platforms, particularly those hosted or operated from outside India. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Sources said the govt proposes penalties of up to two years in jail or with a maximum fine of Rs 50 lakh or both for any entity advertising such games in media. For those offering online money games and banks engaged in transactions face violations of the proposed law will be "cognisable and non-bailable" offences. Every subsequent violation after conviction would attract penalties of at least three years' jail and fine of Rs 10-20 lakh. In the case of advertisers, such penalties would be 2-3 years in jail and fine of Rs 5-10 lakh. The bill proposes to hold senior executives of the companies liable, if it's established that the offences have been committed with the consent or connivance or due to their neglect. It also proposes blocking of platforms and money gaming services, if the entities or individuals fail to comply with the law. According to the proposal, the bill seeks to encourage Indian startups to build culturally relevant content, reduce dependence on foreign platforms and promote self-reliance in the digital gaming ecosystem.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
A Sena minister & a Maratha family that ‘sided with colonial powers'—the Rs 5,000 crore CIDCO land ‘scam'
The plot in Navi Mumbai is currently valued at Rs 5,000 crore and it was reserved for housing for the poor but Shirsat allegedly gave away this land parcel to the Bivalkar family, according to the NCP (SP) MLA. Rohit Pawar of Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) has accused him of bypassing the rules and handing about 15 acre of land of the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) to the heirs of a Bivalkar family, who have been holding this land parcel for over two centuries. Mumbai: Controversial minister Sanjay Shirsat from the Shiv Sena has once again found himself at the centre of a controversy in Maharashtra, this time battling allegations of a land 'scam'. The land parcel is under litigation for years, as the Bombay High Court in 2014 had accepted the ownership of Bivalkar family and directed the CIDCO to furnish the compensation, only to have the decision stayed in the Supreme Court. The Maharashtra government-owned CIDCO is known as a premier town planning and development agency. Shirsat became the CIDCO chairman in 2024. Originally from Ratnagiri and now settled in Pune, the Bivalkar family is said to have been given around 4,000 acres of land in Kolaba (now Raigad) by Raghuji Angre, who controlled the erstwhile state of Kolaba, in 1816 in lieu of its services. The family, according to Pawar, received the land parcel for helping the British against the Maratha empire. 'The family tried to get the land allotted to them but despite repeated attempts, the family's claims were rejected. Yet, Shirsat Saheb, ignoring all norms, handed over 15 acres back to them,' Pawar told the media. 'The rightful share of the poor has been gifted to the heirs of those who once sided with colonial powers. We demand that this land, which is illegally being given to the family, should be taken back by the government and also request the government to take the resignation of Shirsat.' Last month, the social justice minister was earlier in the news after a widely-shared video showed him purportedly sitting on a bed and smoking while a bag full of currency lies near him. ThePrint reached Shirsat for comment via phone calls. This report will be updated if and when a response is received. CIDCO PRO Priya Ratambe refused to comment on the allegations brought against CIDCO and the minister. Also Read: Malegaon ruling, 'Sanatani terror'—Mahayuti, MVA draw battlelines in Maharashtra The legal quagmire Yashwant Bivalkar, who dragged the CIDCO to the court over compensation for a 157-acre parcel, had petitioned that his great-great-grandfather was a minister in Angre's state, which came to prominence when its then ruler Kanhoji Angre led the Maratha navy against the Europeans in the 1700s. Kolaba was annexed by the British in 1840, but the land stayed with the Bivalkars even post-Independence. In fact, it held the properties even after the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act was enacted 1 August 1953. Later, according to an agreement dated 21 January 1959, and gazette on 21 October 1959, between the Colaba collector and the Bivalkars under the Indian Forest Act, the management of 'private forest lands' was handed over to the forest department, as 'reserved forest', on certain terms and conditions. The ownership was never divested even then. In 1960, the Bivalkars saved their property by bringing their property under the ambit of the Bombay Court of Wards Act. On 3 February 1970, a notification was brought out under the Land Acquisition Act, announcing that land is likely to be needed for the planned development and utilisation of the land in the trans harbour, Panvel and trans Thane Creek area for industrial, commercial and residential purposes. Three years on, the Maharashtra government directed that the land cease to be 'protected forest' from the date of the notification, facilitating its transfer to the CIDCO for the planned development of the area. For this purpose, about 150 acres of land was to be used. In 1985, the Bivalkars contended that they should get compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and not the Forest Act. Four years later, their ownership was upheld, but compensation was granted under the Forest Act for 157 acre of land. Yashwant's mother Indirabai Bivalkar challenged the order in the Bombay High Court seeking compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Since then the land is entangled in legal matters. According to the HC, the Bivalkar family's ownership was not questioned till 2010. On 17 September 2010, the CIDCO filed a petition to hold and declare that Bivalkars are not the owners and that the property was finally vested with the government and transferred to the CIDCO. In turn, the HC acknowledged the government's standing that the Bivalkars were the land owners and their proprietary rights till the year 2014. It also ordered the CIDCO to pay compensation but also did not stop the land from being used for Navi Mumbai International Airport, as required by CIDCO, the nodal agency of implementing the airport project. The CIDCO challenged the order in the Supreme Court in 2015, and the apex court has given a stay on the HC order. What oppn MLA says According to Rohit Pawar, since 1990, the Bivalkars have approached CIDCO multiple times to get the allotment of land under the 12.5 percent scheme brought in by then CM Sharad Pawar and local leader late for development of land for the sons of soil. Under this scheme implemented in 1994, the CIDCO allocates 12.5 percent of developed land to project affected persons (PAPs) in lieu of their acquired land. But, the CIDCO is said to have rejected their applications on the grounds that they are not the cultivators of the land. The latest request was made in 2023, which was again rejected citing that the issue is subjudice, according to a copy of the letter from CIDCO seen by ThePrint. But in 2024, through the urban development department, the CIDCO was asked to give away plots to the family, Pawar alleged. When Shirsat became the CIDCO chairman in September 2024, he allotted the land measuring about 15 acre worth Rs 5,000 crore to the family just about a month before the Model Code of Conduct kicked in, he further alleged. This land is for the poor people and on that land, about 8,000-10,000 houses could have been built for the locals, he said, while announcing a protest at the CIDCO office in Navi Mumbai on Wednesday. (Edited by Tony Rai) Also Read: Hindi imposition, English preference, Maharashtra's Marathi schools are vanishing amid a language war
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Love is not penal': SC on minor couples in genuine romantic relationships
'Love is not penal, and it cannot become one,' the Supreme Court asserted on Tuesday, underlining that young couples, even those just short of attaining majority, must be 'left alone' if they have entered into genuine romantic relationships. The Supreme Court bench noted that there is a distinction between exploitative criminal conduct and 'romantic bonds' between teenagers. (HT Photo) A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the remarks while hearing a batch of petitions that sought guidelines to prevent misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in cases where minors engage in consensual relationships. During the proceedings, the court also dismissed petitions by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the National Commission for Women (NCW) challenging Punjab and Haryana high court orders that recognised the validity of marriages of Muslim girls after attaining puberty. The bench said the commissions had 'no locus standi' in such matters, remarking: 'It is strange that NCPCR, which is for protecting children, has challenged an order protecting two children…Leave these couples alone.' ALSO READ | Rape FIR under POCSO can't be quashed based on compromise or marriage: Punjab and Haryana HC Personal laws in Islam allow a Muslim girl to enter into a contract of marriage after attaining puberty whereas a set of common civil and criminal laws in India proscribes the marriage of girls under 18 and further makes sexual intercourse with minors a penal offence. With the dismissal, a January 2023 order of the top court that the high court ruling should not be treated as precedent also came to an end. During the Tuesday hearing, the bench noted that while POCSO remains a vital tool to protect children against sexual abuse, there is a distinction between exploitative criminal conduct and 'romantic bonds' between teenagers. 'Can you say it is criminal to love?' Justice Nagarathna asked, cautioning that prosecuting adolescents for consensual relationships inflicted lasting trauma. Appearing for petitioner NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan (BBA), senior advocate HS Phoolka pressed for safeguards to ensure that leniency in such cases is not abused, suggesting for instance that the age gap between minors in relationships be capped at three years. Phoolka also assailed a 2022 circular by the Tamil Nadu director general of Police directing the police officials to not show haste in effecting an arrest of the accused in consensual relationships, saying such mandates were prone to be misused and minors getting trafficked. But the bench was emphatic that investigators can look into the facts of each case. 'It has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Why do you want to prosecute everyone? Every case is different, and police have to investigate, apply their mind, and segregate genuine cases from those that should be prosecuted,' the court said. ALSO READ | Adolescence, consent & the grey zone for Pocso The bench highlighted the misuse of POCSO provisions by parents who file cases when daughters elope, often citing 'honour' as the pretext. 'Many such cases are filed by the girls' parents to so-called protect their honour. There will be honour killings if we start treating all such cases as crimes,' it warned. 'Look at the trauma when a boy has to be lodged in jail or face prosecution despite having a consensual relationship with a girl who is on the verge of attaining majority…We have to keep the realities of society in mind,' said the court. The bench also reflected on the social realities of adolescent life: 'Girls and boys study together, spend time together. They can develop feelings for each other and have romantic relationships. Where there are genuine romantic relationships; where they want to get married or want to be together…why should they be stopped?' The same bench also refused to entertain different petitions filed by NCPCR and the National Commission for Women (NCW), which had challenged separate high court orders on the issue. In one case, the bodies had assailed a Punjab and Haryana high court judgment, which held that Muslim girls are legally old enough to marry once they reach puberty at the age of 15; in another, the high court had handed custody of a minor girl to her adult husband following a habeas corpus plea. The bench said that NCPCR or NCW had no locus (legal standing) to interfere in these personal matters. 'NCPCR has no locus standi to challenge such orders,' the bench held. It further remarked: 'It is strange that the NCPCR, which is for protecting the children, has challenged an order protecting two children. How can we set aside protection orders of a high court? Leave these couples alone.' With the NCPCR's petitions getting disposed of on Tuesday, a January 2023 order by a previous bench of the Supreme Court that the Punjab and Haryana high court judgment shall not be treated as a legal precedent also ends. The court's observations come against the backdrop of multiple pending pleas, including those filed by BBA and NCPCR, that grapple with whether the statutory age of consent at 18 under POCSO should be revisited. Senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao assisted the court as amicus curiae. In separate proceedings, the Union government last month adduced its submissions in the top court, opposing any move to lower the age of consent under POCSO or introduce exceptions for adolescent relationships. As reported first by HT on July 24, the government told the court that such dilution, 'even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy,' would dismantle the statutory shield meant to safeguard minors and risk opening the door to child abuse. It added that the current threshold of 18 years must remain 'strictly and uniformly enforced' to maintain the integrity of child protection laws and uphold the best interests of minors. ALSO READ | Mutual acts of love between minor couple not sexual assault under POCSO, says HC HT's analysis of government data, presented as part of its written submissions, revealed a stark disparity between the number of juveniles and young adults charged under rape and child sexual abuse laws and the relatively small proportion who are eventually convicted, throwing focus on the ongoing debate over the age of consent and its unintended consequences. Between 2018 and 2022, only 468 juveniles aged 16-18 were convicted under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, despite more than 4,900 being booked across the country in the same period , a conviction rate of just 9.55%. For charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, just 855 convictions were recorded out of 6,892 cases during the same period , a rate of only 12.4%. The corresponding numbers for young adults aged 18-22 tell a similar story. While 52,471 were arrested under these stringent laws during this period, only 6,093 were convicted under POCSO, a conviction rate of just 11.61%. Of 24,306 arrested between 2018 and 2022 for rape, only 2,585 young adults were convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, amounting to just 10.63%.
