The ties that were snapped after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks would be revived this year
New Delhi: India-Pakistan bilateral cricket ties are set for revival after a five-year gap with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), on Monday deciding to invite the neighbouring team for a three-match one day international (ODI) series in December, reports PTI.
The ties had been snapped after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and there have been several attempts by the Pakistan Cricket Board in recent months to convince the BCCI.
The planned series is subject to government approval.
"The government is ready in principle to host the Pakistan team", a top BCCI official said after the Working Committee meeting in the capital.
The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) had earlier proposed that either India tour Pakistan or play them at a neutral venue.
Resumption of Indo-Pak bilateral cricket ties got a boost after the foreign secretaries of both the countries asserted that sporting relations should be strengthened.
The thaw in the relations had begun much before that when BCCI invited Pakistan's domestic Twenty20 champion Sialkot Stallions to participate in the Qualifying Tournament of Champions League Twenty20 to be held in South Africa later this year.
During the recent visit of PCB chief Zaka Ashraf to India and at last month's ICC and Asian Cricket Council meetings in Malaysia, there had been discussions between officials of both the Boards on the matter.
India and Pakistan last played in a bilateral series in November 2007, in which the former beat the latter 3-2.
After that, there was no bilateral cricket between the two arch-rivals even though they did face each other in multi-team events like the World Cup.
Although the fixture of the three-match series is yet to be decided, Mohali and Chennai are the likely venues to host the matches. The third venue could be either New Delhi or Bangalore.
Developed countries are left scot-free and it is always a developing country that is targeted by the West's Trojan Horses-NGOs. No wonder, citizens of developing countries demonstrate guilt complexes over their own impact on the environment
Every year the National Geographic conducts an annual Greendex survey. The latest report is now out. Read here
The survey found that citizens of countries with the largest per capita carbon footprint—the developed countries—have the least guilt trips over their individual “carbon footprint” they leave behind. Ironically, it was found that it was citizens from developing countries with the lowest per capita “carbon footprints” suffer from huge guilt complexes, with India heading this list!
How can this paradox be explained? The developed countries continue to merrily increase their per capita “carbon footprint”. However, due to “their extreme concern for their environment”, they want to offset these increases but are not prepared to have their own citizens forgo their living standards.
So what do they do? They instead unleash on developing countries their Trojan Horses—NGOs like WWF; Greenpeace; Oxfam; ActionAid; ChristianAid, etc whose hysterical campaigns are designed to condition the minds of unsuspecting citizens from developing countries to go on guilt trips over their abysmally low per capita “carbon footprints”! As the National Geographic Greendex survey findings indicate, these NGOs did not fail their Western masters and even can use the survey findings to claim ‘impact’!
This is a common practice adopted all the time by the West. For example, they raise much hue and cry about deforestation and extinction of species and target countries like Malaysia and Indonesia even when Australia is logically a more appropriate place to target.
Australia, with a smaller population was deforesting (over half million hectares per year between 2000 and 2010) at rate that is five times higher than that by Malaysia; forest to total land ratio in Malaysia is 56% compared to 17% for Australia; and agricultural land to forest area ratio for Malaysia is 1:3 whereas it is 3:1 for Australia despite its smaller population. There are many Australian animals that are already extinct or endangered as compared to Malaysia where hardly any animal has gone extinct. But Australia is left scot-free and it always a developing country that is targeted by the West’s Trojan Horses—NGOs.
No wonder, citizens of developing countries demonstrate guilt complexes over own impact on the environment while citizens of developed countries demonstrate not only such complexes but in fact most likely to feel they are actually making a positive impact on the environment!
The Consumer Forum rejected New India Assurance Co's contention saying that the claim cannot be rejected merely because the FIR was recorded under different section
New Delhi: The New India Assurance Co Ltd has been directed by a consumer forum in Delhi to pay Rs45,000 to a computer store owner for rejecting his claim for the theft of a laptop from his shop, reports PTI.
The Central District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, while giving the relief to computer store owner S Adlakha, said the insurance company's decision to reject his claim, on the ground that it was theft and not house-breaking, was "not well-founded" as the facts showed that "theft was committed with house-breaking".
"The facts bring the case under the definition of 'house breaking'. The theft was committed with house-breaking.
Consequently, the authority relied upon by the insurance firm is not applicable. It is so because in the present case there are adequate facts to show that it was a case of house breaking /theft...The entry in the shop was with the intention to commit theft. The exit was violent. The insurance company has not disputed the theft of the laptop and its value. The rejection of the claim is not well-founded and it amounts to deficiency in service," said the bench, presided by BB Chaudhary.
In his complaint, Adlakha, owner of Repotech Systems (India) Pvt Ltd, had said the thief had come into his store enquiring about laptops and while he was showing him various machines, the thief had run off with one of them.
He also said that the thief had shoved him to the ground and tore his shirt when he tried to catch him.
He added that after lodging the FIR, when he filed the claim, the had rejected it saying it was a case of theft and not covered under the Shopkeepers Insurance Policy bought by him.
The company in its defence contended that as per the policy issued to Adlakha, cover was provided against burglary and house-breaking, fire and allied perils and not for theft.
It said it had rejected Adlakha's claim, on the basis of the FIR lodged by the police officers under section 380 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code, as theft is not covered under the policy issued to him.
The forum rejected the contention saying "the claim cannot be rejected merely because the FIR was recorded under section 380 IPC. It is to be found out if the facts of the case can bring the case of the complainant for reimbursement in regard to the policy under the heading 'burglary, house breaking'."
The bench directed the company to pay Adlakha Rs35,000, the value of the laptop, along with Rs10,000 as compensation for harassment and cost of litigation.