A day after at least 40 CRPF personnel were killed in a deadly attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pulwama district, India has revoked the ‘Most Favoured Nation’ status to Pakistan. 

The decision was announced by Union minister Arun Jaitley after meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). He also said that the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) will initiate diplomatic steps to ensure complete isolation of Pakistan in the international community.

India granted the MFN status to Pakistan way back in in 1996, but the neighbouring country has not yet reciprocated.

The MFN status was accorded under WTO’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Both India and Pakistan are signatories to this; and are members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which means they have to treat each other and the other WTO member countries as favoured trading partners in terms of imposing customs duties on goods.

Removal of this status means India can now enhance customs duties to any level on goods coming from Pakistan, a trade expert told PTI.

Under the MFN status, a WTO member country is obliged to treat other trading nations in a non-discriminatory manner, especially with regard to customs duty and other levies.

Jaitley said that those who committed this heinous act or supported it will be made to pay a heavy cost. 

The Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility of the attack in which a suicide bomber rammed a vehicle carrying over 100 kg of explosives into the CRPF convoy.

India had on Thursday slammed Pakistan over the terror attack and asked the neighbouring country to stop supporting terrorists and dismantle terror infrastructure operating from its soil.

India also strongly reiterated its appeal to all members of the international community to support the proposal to list terrorists, including JeM chief Masood Azhar, as a designated terrorist under the 1267 Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council, and to ban terrorist organisations operating from territories controlled by Pakistan.

Pakistan has rejected India’s charges, saying the terrorist attack “is a matter of grave concern”. Pakistan’s Foreign Office, in a statement, said, “We have always condemned heightened acts of violence in the Valley.”

“We strongly reject any insinuation by elements in the Indian government and media circles that seek to link the attack to the State of Pakistan without investigations,” the FO added.

(With PTI inputs)

Those responsible for the Pulwama attack which killed 40 CRPF personnel will be punished, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Friday after chairing a top-level security meeting with senior ministers of the government.

Modi said India would give a strong reply to the attack in Kashmir. “The forces behind this act of terrorism and those responsible for it, will be definitely be punished. I’m warning terror groups. They have made a big mistake and will pay a heavy price,” the prime minister said.

He was speaking at an event to flag off a new semi-high speed train from Delhi to Varanasi, where he observed two minutes of silence for the martyred soldiers.

“I pay tribute to the soldiers who lost their lives in the Pulwama attack. I know people’s blood boils. Our security forces have been given full freedom. We have full faith in their bravery,” Modi said.

Referring to Pakistan, he said, “If our neighbour which is totally isolated in the world thinks it can destabilise India through its tactics and conspiracies, then it is making a big mistake.”

India revoked Most Favoured Nation status for Pakistan after the top security meet on Friday. 

Pakistan has rejected any link to the attack and called it “a matter of grave concern”.

To colleagues in politics, Modi said it was “a sensitive time.”

“We need to speak in one voice to win this battle,” he said.

The prime minister thanked the countries who had extended support to India and condemned the incident in the strongest of terms. 

In one of the deadliest terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir’s three decades of militancy, a suicide bomber from the Jaish-e-Mohammed terror group rammed an explosives-laden vehicle into a CRPF bus in Pulwama district on Thursday, killing 40 personnel and leaving many critically wounded.

Congress president Rahul Gandhi on Friday condemned the Pulwama attack in which at least 40 CRPF personnel were killed. “This type of violence done against our security forces is absolutely disgusting,” he said while adding that the entire opposition stands with the government and the jawans. 

He said that the aim of terrorism is to divide the country, but “we are not going to be divided”.

Gandhi had said on Thursday that he was deeply disturbed by the cowardly attack on the CRPF convoy.

Congress leader and former prime minister Manmohan Singh also said that “today is a day of mourning”.

Singh further said, “we will work as one united nation to fight terror”.

At least 40 CRPF personnel were killed on Thursday in one of the deadliest terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir when a Jaish suicide bomber rammed a vehicle carrying over 100 kg of explosives into their bus in Pulwama district.

NEW DELHI — The UIDAI Thursday told the Delhi High Court that there was no security breach of its database or Central Identity Data Repository (CIDR) and sought dismissal of a petition seeking damages for Aadhaar data “leaks”.

The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the 12-digit Aadhaar number issuing body, in an affidavit filed before a bench of Justices Ravindra Bhat and Prateek Jalan, said its existing security controls and protocols are “robust and capable of countering any such attempts or malicious designs of data breach or hacking”.

“Security of Aadhaar is of critical importance and is given paramount significance by the Respondent. Respondent no-1 (UIDAI) constantly strengthens and reviews its infrastructure and ecosystems in line with the best international security practices and technological standards and has multi-layered security and privacy considerations built into the core strategy of Aadhaar with three basic doctrines of minimal information, optimal ignorance and federated database which give higher level of security to the data,” it said.

The affidavit was filed in response to a petition by Kerala-based lawyer Shamnad Basheer who has alleged that there were several breaches of the Aadhaar system leading to leakage of personal information of individuals since January 2018 and contended that UIDAI and the Centre were liable to compensate people whose data were compromised.

The UIDAI claimed that the petition was no longer maintainable in view of the Supreme Court’s last year decision in K Puttaswamy case in which it has upheld most of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act and the scheme.

“The writ petition is not maintainable after the Supreme Court’s judgment in K Puttaswamy Vs Union of India, by which the Aadhaar Act and scheme were upheld for the most part. Issues raised in the petition are squarely covered by the judgment,” it said.

However, the apex court in its majority verdict had said that “A challenge to the Aadhaar project for violation of IT Act and Rules has been filed in the Delhi High Court in the matter of Shamnad Basheer Vs UIDAI and Ors. Therefore, we are not dealing with this aspect, nor does it arise for consideration in these proceedings.”

The UIDAI also reproduced in the affidavit some portions of the apex court Aadhaar judgement to show what the top court had ruled on privacy concerns raised by various petitioners. 

 Denying the “false and baseless” allegations of any data breach, the authorities said Basheer has not been able to demonstrate how his rights have been affected.

″... the data is fully secured/encrypted at all times i.e., at rest, in transit and in storage. For further strengthening of security and privacy of data, security audits are conducted on regular basis, and all possible steps are taken to make the data safer and protected. Further, there are multiple layers of security at physical level in UIDAI Data Centres and is being managed by armed CISF personnel round the clock. Strengthening of security of data is ongoing process and all possible steps are being taken in this regard,” it said.

″... UIDAI has taken fool-proof measures to ensure end-to-end security of resident data, spanning from full encryption of resident data at the time of capture, tamper resistance, physical security, access control, network security, stringent audit mechanism, 24/7 monitoring and measures such as data partitioning and data encryption with UIDAI controlled data centres,” it said and added that the petition be dismissed for being devoid of merit.

The high court had earlier sought response of the UIDAI and the Centre on the plea raising concerns about Aadhaar data security and privacy of individuals, in the wake of several reported leaks of personal information of people from the UIDAI database.

The plea has also urged the court to direct the Centre to either allow people to opt out of the system or delete the entire existing UIDAI data in view of the security breaches.

Referring to one such alleged breach, the plea has said a media house had allegedly managed to gain access to the entire database by paying a sum of Rs 500.

It has said the breach, which was acknowledged by UIDAI and later led to the lodging of a criminal case against those involved, was a result of a leak of the “access control” given to some individuals.

The petition has contended that the breaches occurred due to the “negligence and willful recklessness” on part of UIDAI to adopt reasonable security measures to secure the private information.

It has also claimed that UIDAI was obligated to frame a comprehensive information security and privacy policy and sought action against the National Informatics Centre (NIC) for its alleged failure to adhere to security practices.

The plea has further sought setting up of an independent investigative committee to probe and audit all security and privacy breaches of the Aadhaar database. 

Amazon almost doubled its profits from $5.6 billion in 2017 to $11.2 billion in 2018, but the company isn’t expected to pay a cent in federal taxes this year, according to a new report.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic policy released its findings Wednesday after examining the company’s corporate filings. Amazon reported a $129 million federal income tax rebate for 2018, equaling a tax rate of negative 1 percent. (The federal corporate income tax rate is 21 percent.)

“The fine print of Amazon’s income tax disclosure shows that this achievement is partly due to various unspecified ‘tax credits’ as well as a tax break for executive stock options,” the report stated.

This would be the second year in a row that the company has avoided paying federal taxes, despite being valued at a whopping $1 trillion.

“When Congress in 2017 enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and substantially cut the statutory corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, proponents claimed the rate cut would incentivize better corporate citizenship,” the report continued. “However, the tax law failed to broaden the tax base or close a slew of tax loopholes that allow profitable companies to routinely avoid paying federal and state income taxes on almost half of their profits.”

Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Contrary to claims by President Donald Trump that Amazon is a “no-tax” company, it actually does pay some taxes. In 2017, the company paid a combined total of $412 million in federal, state, local and foreign taxes. In 2015, it paid $273 million. Amazon charges consumers sales taxes in all 45 states where such taxes exist, plus Washington, D.C. 

But Amazon did appear to be on the hunt for tax breaks in 2017 and 2018 when it was shopping for a new location to house its second headquarters. City officials eager for Amazon’s attention offered up a slew of tax breaks and credits to lure the company.

When it announced last year it would split the new headquarters between New York City and Arlington, Virginia, with an additional operations center in Nashville, Tennessee, Amazon was poised to collect billions in performance-based incentives between the three cities.

Amazon on Thursday announced it was canceling plans for a New York City-based headquarters.

Courteney Cox revealed some pretty personal information that she’s “proud of” during a candid chat with James Corden on “The Late Late Show” Wednesday. 

The actress told the talk show host, the audience and hundreds of thousands of people watching that she lost her virginity at 21 — and got a little help from her mother before the big event.

“I didn’t learn anything, my mom never talked to me about one thing that I should’ve known,” Cox said to Corden and fellow guest comedian Nick Kroll. 

“I was a virgin until I was 21. I think we can be proud of that,” she said, before divulging that her mom gave her a special gift for the act, considering she’d “dated the guy for a long time.”

“She sent me a pair of underwear to try to, you know, womanhood. And they were called Olga, and I swear, the lace was about three and a half, four inches, and then the cotton part,” she said.

“But they were so much better than the ones I was wearing, so I was really backwards when it came to that. But, you know.”

Kroll made sure to ask if Cox ended up wearing the outfit for her boyfriend. She said she did. 

“They were pretty snazzy,” she exclaimed. “I mean, not in this day and age.”

These days, the “Friends” star is dating musician Johnny McDaid, who is in the band Snow Patrol. The two, who used to be engaged, now refer to each other as “partner.” 

“That’s what he calls it: ‘partner.’ And I’m from Alabama, so you don’t really say ‘partner’ unless you’re in the same sex,” she said on a recent episode of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” 

“He’s my guy. He’s my one. But saying ‘partner’ is difficult for me,” Cox said. “Like, I was in Atlanta not that long ago, and I was like, ‘Oh, I’m supposed to meet my partner in Section F.’ And they were like, ‘Oh, I’m sure she’s going to be there. Don’t worry.’” 

BEIJING — China on Friday expressed deep “shock” over the Pulwama terror attack carried out by a Jaish suicide bomber but once again declined to back India’s appeal to list the Pakistan-based terror group’s chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist by the UN.

At least 40 CRPF personnel were killed and many injured on Thursday in one of the deadliest terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir when a Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) suicide bomber rammed a vehicle carrying over 100 kg of explosives into their bus in Pulwama district.

“China has noted the reports of suicide terrorist attack. We are deeply shocked by this attack. We express deep condolences and sympathy to the injured and bereaved families,” spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry Geng Shuang told a media briefing.

“We firmly oppose and strongly condemn all forms of terrorism. We hope relevant regional countries will cooperate to cope with the threat of terrorism and jointly uphold regional peace and stability,” Geng said.

When asked about China’s stand on the listing of Azhar as a global terrorist by the UN Security Council, he said: “As for the issue of listing, I could tell you that the 1267 Committee of Security Council has a clear stipulation on the listing and procedure of the terrorist organisations”.

“JeM has been included in the Security Council terrorism sanctions list. China will continue to handle the relevant sanctions issue in a constructive and responsible manner,” Geng said in an apparent reference to External Affairs Ministry’s appeal to all members of the UN Security Council to list Azhar as a global terrorist.

China, a veto-wielding member of the UNSC and a close ally of Pakistan, has consistently blocked moves first by India and later by the US, the UK and France to designate Azhar as a global terrorist by the 1267 Committee by putting technical holds.

Asked whether China would be re-looking at the issue in view of the positive momentum in bilateral relations generated by last year’s Wuhan summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, Geng said: “JeM as an organisation has been included in the sanctions list of the Security Council.

“As to the listing of an individual, we have always upheld an earnest, responsible and professional manner. We always acted in accordance with the requirement of the situation. We will continue to maintain close communication with India and relevant parties on this issue”.

India on Thursday slammed Pakistan over the Pulwama terror attack carried out by JeM and asked the neighbouring country to stop supporting terrorists and dismantle terror infrastructure operating from its soil.

India also strongly reiterated its appeal to all members of the international community to support the proposal to list terrorists, including JeM chief Azhar, as a designated terrorist under the 1267 Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council, and to ban terrorist organisations operating from territories controlled by Pakistan.

A day after the Pulwama terror attack in which at least 40 CRPF personnel were killed, India withdrew the ‘Most Favoured Nation’ status to Pakistan. The decision was announced by Union Minister Arun Jaitley in a media briefing after the meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on Friday.

The decision would impact $488.5 million worth of goods that Pakistan exports to India. 

Under the MFN pact, a member country of the World Trade Organisation is obliged to treat the other trading nation in a non-discriminatory manner, especially with regard to customs duty and other levies. 

India granted the MFN status to Pakistan way back in in 1996, but the neighbouring country had not yet reciprocated.

The status was accorded under WTO’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Both India and Pakistan are signatories to this and are members of the WTO.

Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. “Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.”

What does this mean?

After the withdrawal of the MFN status, India can raise customs duties on several goods being imported from Pakistan.

The main items which India imports from its neighbour include fresh fruits, cement, petroleum products, bulk minerals and ores and finished leather.

India mainly exports raw cotton, cotton yarn, chemicals, plastics, manmade yarn and dyes to Pakistan.

According to Moneycontrol, Pakistan stands to lose concessions on tariff, freer markets and a free flow of goods that come with the MFN status. The status is helpful for countries to have broader access to a market for trade goods, The Times of India said. 

Trade experts told PTI that this decision would not have a major implication on bilateral trade between the countries as the value of trade is below $3 billion annually.

The Indian Express pointed out that even though the low volumes of trade limit the impact of such a move, the stoppage of input materials will push up costs of production for the relevant Pakistani industries.

The withdrawal of MFN status would also give a push to the illegal trade between the two countries, the report added. 

The decision came in the wake of Pulwama attack, one of the deadliest terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir, for which Pakistan-based terror group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility.

India has blamed Pakistan for the attack, saying the country has given full freedom to JeM chief Masood Azhar to operate and expand his terror infrastructure in territories under Pakistan’s control and to carry out attacks in India and elsewhere with impunity.

(With PTI inputs)

Even if you’re currently in a happy relationship, at some point you’ve probably experienced heartbreak, and many of us have been the stereotypical person grabbing a pint of ice cream out of the freezer to soothe our pain.

In 2004’s ”Edge of Reason” film adaptation, Bridget Jones famously wrapped herself in a comforter and scooped up Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to chase away her love triangle blues. “Scary Movie 3” took the image a step further when Anna Faris and Regina Hall ate from a colossal tub of ice cream. Whether it’s“The Incredibles’” Violet turning invisible and crying over a pint, “SNL” host Emma Stone eating ice cream and crying while listening to Adele, Rory Gilmore “wallowing” or powerhouse Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posting an Instagram story of enjoying Stephen Colbert’s Ben & Jerry’s Americone Dream after a long day of battling haters, most of the ice cream mollycoddling we see in pop culture focuses on women.

However, Chandler (Matthew Perry) in ”Friends” broke the stereotype in season three (1996) of the series. Monica and Rachel offered him a tub of generic French vanilla, and he complained it “tastes like crap.” Rachel said, “Yeah, well that’s that low-cal, non-dairy, soy milk junk. We save the real stuff for the truly terminal cases.” And Monica added, “You know, when you start getting screwed over all the time, you gotta switch to low-fat.” Today, they’d be eating Halo Top.

Food psychologist Jen Bateman explains that one reason we rely on ice cream is because it stirs up nostalgia. “Specific cravings are often linked to experiences of those foods in our past,” she told HuffPost. “People who were offered ice cream as a distraction when upset, or have positive associations of ice cream in the past, are more likely to crave it in the here and now.”

Besides happy childhood memories, where did this idea of eating ice cream when we’re sad come from, and does fat and sugar actually help us mitigate sadness?

Ashley Gearhardt, a University of Michigan associate professor of psychology and a clinical psychologist, performs research at the university’s FAST (Food Addiction Science and Treatment) Lab. Her focus is on the association between highly processed junk foods and whether they trigger addictive properties similar to cigarettes and booze.

“Our brains are really set up to find highly caloric things rewarding,” Gearhardt told HuffPost. “Ice cream has two of the ingredients that we’re engineered to have a big reward response to: fat and sugar. We’ve gotten so good at mass-producing these hyper-rewarding foods. Now it’s not just chocolate [ice cream that does it for us]. It’s chocolate with chunks of marshmallow and fudge ripple in it.”

Although one study suggests ice cream makes people happy, Gearhardt mentioned a 2012 study thatKyle S. Burger and Eric Stice published in which they discovered people received limited contentment from the treat. They studied people who consumed ice cream-based chocolate milkshakes. While the participants drank the shake, the researchers ran fMRIs on their brain responses. The conclusion: “Our results provide novel evidence that frequent consumption of ice cream, independent of body fat, is related to a reduction in reward-region responsivity in humans, paralleling the tolerance observed in drug addiction.” Yes, drug addiction.

“Individuals who were the most frequent consumers of chocolate ice cream got less reward-related brain responses than those who didn’t eat it more frequently,” Gearhardt explained. (She was not involved in the study.) “The idea thinking, that maybe the more you’re consuming something, your body adapts and becomes tolerant to it. You don’t get as much bang for your buck as you used to, so maybe you need even sweeter ice cream or maybe more ice cream to get what you’re expecting to get.”

Once the “high” from the sugar subsided, Gearhardt said many people felt remorse. “You get this one-two punch of you’re not in a great place, you have these emotional memories, you have expectations. Marketing and advertising tells us, ‘Oh you’re feeling cranky, and a Snickers or ice cream, that’s what’s going to make you feel better.’ We really encode these things, and when you eat it, it doesn’t quite live up to the hype.”

Gearhardt said people not only feel regret but also nauseated and low-energy, and in order to achieve that hyper reward, they’ll turn to other snack foods, like potato chips, or even alcohol

Gearhardt suggested that women-eating-ice cream became ingrained in pop-culture maybe because men approach depression different than women do. “If a guy’s really sad, or something bad has happened to him, we see in culture a lot of them going to the bar and drinking it away,” she said. “But for women —this is changing, though [more women are abusing alcohol] — there were gender norms that alcohol and other drugs of abuse weren’t appropriate for women to use to cope.”

“Some research suggests that women are more likely to use eating to numb, distract and soothe emotions,” Jessica Bihuniak, a dietitian and an assistant professor of clinical nutrition at New York University, told HuffPost.

Sandra Bullock satirized this idea in “Miss Congeniality” (2000) and took “give me a pint” to a new level. As she sat at the bar, feeling down in the dumps and eating a burger, the bartender presented her with the “pint” — a whole container of Ben & Jerry’s chocolate chip cookie dough (more product placement). “I’m gonna get shit-faced,” she joked.

“If you’re not societally allowed to go to the bar and pour a whiskey and drink the pain away, then ice cream is the gendered-appropriate alternative,” Gearhardt said.

The first spoonful always tastes the best, but Gearhardt said the more ice cream you eat, the more it leads to diminishing returns, and it gets to the point where “I don’t even taste it.” (In 2013, researchers at Würzburg University in Germanypublished a study on how sadness can mask our ability to taste fat.)“It’s not about the pleasure or joy or paying attention to the taste,” she said. “It’s almost like, I’m kind of zoned out and just shoveling it in my mouth.”

Healthy foods like veggies and fruit can boost moods, but Gearhardt said the best way to manage sadness or heartache is to engage in a non-food activity, such as social support, exercising (Olivia Pope from ”Scandal” and later season Don Draper from ”Mad Men” swam laps) and reading a book. “I think throwing food at it, when you’re not hungry, is not going to fix the problem. So whether it’s carrots and apples or ice cream, at the end of the day you’re still probably going to still feel sad. It’s OK to want to take care of yourself as long as it’s not a problem for people.”

Bihuniak echoed the non-food activity. “In general, eating ice cream is completely fine and should be enjoyed, but I do not recommend using it as a coping strategy,” she said. “I don’t believe people should depend on food to feel happy. … In some cases, I have suggested using modeling clay or Play-Doh as a mood enhancer. Using our hands in a creative manner can be very rewarding.”

But to avoid problems like binge-eating and eating disorders, Gearhardt said people need to identify real expectations related to food. “What are the expectations people have about junk food and are they actually what they’re experiencing? Those expectations can keep the behaviors going, and the more society shows Bridget Jones at home with her ice cream, it kind of influences those expectations.”

My boyfriend and I were walking back to our hostel in Berlin after a pub crawl when he told me he needed to be on his own for a while. We had been traveling together for less than two weeks.

He had been moody and quiet ever since he got off the plane in Paris. He blamed it on the jet lag, but he stayed “jet-lagged” for the next 10 days. I tried being extra chatty and affectionate whenever he was distant, but this seemed to irritate him even more. I could tell he wasn’t having fun, but I hadn’t forced him to be there.

He was almost his old self again during the pub crawl as we sipped margaritas and bantered with British backpackers. He even held my hand for a little bit on the way home. I started to tear up when I realized it was the first time he’d done that in days. A sob escaped my lips before I could stop it.

“I hate when you do that.” He dropped my hand. “I need a break. I shouldn’t have come on this trip.”

He had never spoken to me like that before, especially not when I was crying.

“Why did you, then?”

“Because I didn’t know it would be like this! You’re so clingy. Why can’t you stop acting like a lost kitten?”

“Are you seriously calling me clingy?” I saw a taxi pulling over nearby. “Would a clingy person do this?”

I ran across the road, jumped into the back seat and disappeared into the night, giving him all the space he wanted. Was it immature? Absolutely. Would I handle it that way now? Probably not. But in the moment, it felt good.

I thought about staying out all night clubbing, but everything looked closed, so I asked the driver to take me back to our hostel. When my boyfriend stumbled through the door an hour later, he hadn’t changed his mind. He began to list everything I’d done that had pushed him over the edge. He resented me for pressuring him into going on the trip. He accused me of hiding my face under my fringe and hiding my body under oversize cardigans. He told me my insecurities were like clouds of cobwebs obscuring my true self.

The last time I saw him was at the station as I boarded a train bound for Prague. We had a hostel booked there for four nights. I planned to spend a few days regrouping before planning my next move. He was staying one more night in Berlin before flying home. I sat down in an empty carriage and started scrolling through photos on my phone — anything to avoid making eye contact with him for those last few seconds before the train pulled away.

I spent the first hour of the train ride crying silently and hiccuping loudly, in between sneaky sips from a miniature bottle of convenience store wine. Fortunately, I had the carriage to myself.

Memories of the past year and a half played on a loop in my head ― spending the holidays with his family up the coast, our New Year’s Eve kiss at his friends’ house party, lazing on the beach reading aloud to each other during our last weekend back home.

I searched for some mistake I could point to and vow to never repeat. I thought I was an attentive partner. I gave him space, never policed his female friendships or complained when he struck up conversations with pretty waitresses. Sometimes I got upset with him when he canceled plans at the last minute. I knew he had a lot going on; I just wished he’d organize his time better. But nothing explained why he couldn’t be on the same continent as me anymore. 

I thought of something an older co-worker said to me before I left for Europe. She and her then-boyfriend went backpacking together in their 20s, and she returned home convinced he was the one.

“I knew if we could make it through that, we could make it through anything,” she told me. They’ve been married for 16 years now and have three kids.

I hadn’t expected our trip to be all smooth sailing. I liked researching places and having a basic itinerary, even if we didn’t stick to it. He thought I needed to be more spontaneous. Also, he was never on time for anything, so I knew it would be up to me to make sure we didn’t miss our trains. But we loved each other, I thought, and we had always managed to talk through our problems. It was our first real test as a couple, and not only had we failed spectacularly, but I also had no idea what I had done wrong. I didn’t expect a fairy tale ending, but I had hoped for one with a little more dignity.

Two hours later, I looked out the window properly for the first time. The sun was setting over green hills dotted with cows and little cottages on stilts with thatched roofs. Hills cast dark reflections across the stillness of the river flowing next to the train line. I saw the hint of a city skyline on the horizon. A strange energy was building in my chest, jolting me out of my self-pitying stupor. It made me want to laugh, cry, rage and roar all at once, so loud that I would send ripples through the river. I felt less like a lost kitten and more like a lioness ready to maul the next tourist who threw a french fry at me.

It occurred to me that I could keep examining the wreckage of our relationship looking for answers that may never come or I could leave the pieces on the ground and move on. I had worked hard to save up for this trip. I still had a couple of weeks left in Europe, and we hadn’t booked anything after Prague. Not only could I go anywhere I wanted, but I was single.

I spent the next two weeks in this strange heightened state in which colors looked brighter, food tasted sweeter and sunsets reduced me to tears. I woke up each morning knowing I could do whatever I felt like, without feeling guilty or worrying if he was having fun. I explored castles and hip, grungy laneways in Prague. In Budapest, I partied at open-air bars, kissed a stranger on a dance floor and recovered in thermal baths. I caught up with an old friend over curry in London, geeked out over the Harry Potter studio tour and blew my remaining cash on a corset and a leather notebook at Camden Market. There were moments when I wished he had been by my side savoring the experiences with me, but they never lasted long. After all, he had chosen not to be there.

I started feeling more like my old self, the girl who would try almost anything once just so she could write about it one day. Being alone forced me to start more conversations with strangers. Sometimes conversations would turn into drinks and card games at a hostel or a night out exploring a new city. Other times, I would go out for a meal by myself and remember how much I like my own company.

I expected depression to kick in when I got home and had to deal with real life, but that never happened. I downloaded Tinder and started lining up dates the second the bars appeared on my phone after the plane touched down. I dyed my hair red, started taking pole-dancing classes and sold the earrings he bought me on eBay. He texted me sporadically over the next few months, saying he missed me and he was sorry how everything turned out. I stopped replying once I had all my stuff back.

It has been five years. I haven’t completely forgiven him, but I allow myself to smile sometimes when I think of happier times. When I look through photos from that trip, I can see the shock and hurt in my eyes, even when I’m smiling. But I also see flickers of the rage I channeled into my career, securing my dream job. I see sparks of creativity, as I started trying to capture what I saw on paper. I see a glimmer of hope to heal with the intention of loving again one day. I see someone who took her pain and used it to create the life she always wanted for herself, on her own terms. I have no regrets. 

Do you have a personal story you’d like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we’re looking for here and send us a pitch!

Lok Sabha elections are just months away, and all Indian citizens who are 18 years old or more are eligible to cast their vote and make their voices heard. 

Voting can only be done at polling booths, which would be set up across the country during the election days. You can go to the polling booth where you are registered and cast your vote. 

Before checking your polling station, you must ensure that your name is in the electoral roll. 

Here is how you can know your polling booth online:

- Go to the website of the National Voters’ Services Portal (NSVP).

- On the right hand side, click on ‘Know your booth’ under ‘Citizen Information’. 

- Fill the required details and click on search.

- You can also search through your Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC) number.

NEW DELHI — The CRPF on Friday said it won’t “forget and forgive” but will “avenge” the death of 40 of its personnel in one of the worst terror attacks on its troops in Jammu and Kashmir.

The country’s largest paramilitary force put out a tweet from its official handle saying, “We will not forget, we will not forgive.”

“We salute our martyrs of Pulwama attack and stand with the families of our martyr brothers. This heinous attack will be avenged,” it said in the social media post.

The force said that “in memory of the martyrs of the terrorist attack”, all formations of the Central Reserve Police Force observed two minutes of silence and the force flag will fly half mast on Friday.

The toll in the attack has risen to 40 even as a full Court of Inquiry has been ordered by the CRPF headquarters in Delhi.

The over 3-lakh personnel strong paramilitary force is deployed as the lead combat unit against terrorism and insurgency in the Kashmir Valley and has deployed about 60,000 personnel (as part of 60 battalions) in the internal security grid of the state.

January 1944

Near Kausani, Kumaon Division, United Provinces (current Uttarakhand), India

Manohar Rai winced as a dart of pain shot through his wounds. The steep uphill climb had left him gasping for breath, and the suddenness of the departure from the previous hideout made him feel quite disoriented.

But none of this concerned him in the least, consumed as he was by a rapidly rising panic.

The fate of millions rested on his tired shoulders, and he was feeling hopelessly inadequate to the task.

His mood was in stark contrast to the surroundings. The dimly lit hut stood on a hill facing a picturesque valley. The meandering streams and snow-capped Himalayan peaks epitomised tranquility, as did the villages dotting the landscape. At this hour of the night, the vista was dreamlike, almost magical, as distant lights from the valley complemented the glow of village lanterns.

But all this was lost on Manohar.

A million deaths, maybe more, on his conscience. It was just not fair.

He had scrupulously followed orders all his life, never stopping to question his leaders, not even when the orders had involved braving police bayonets or enduring weeks in prison.

But having to decide for millions of people was not a burden that he had signed up for. Yet here he was, thrust by history into this role in the seventh decade of his life. 

There was a loud bang in the background, echoing across the hills, jolting Manohar from his ruminations.

He shuddered. It was a grenade explosion, probably at their previous hideout. Had his compatriots made it out in time?

This was not the time to worry. He had to decide. Fast.

He swallowed hard as he hobbled nervously around the hut. It was indeed a dark hour. The World War was dragging on, the Japanese knocking menacingly at India’s door. Within India, the freedom movement was in shambles; ‘Quit India’ in disarray. It had now been over a year since Gandhi-ji had been incarcerated in Poona, his communication with the outside world restricted. An entire generation of freedom fighters was behind bars: Sardar Patel, Pandit Nehru, Jayaprakash Narayan, everybody.

Manohar wondered whether Bapu would approve of the secrecy. But with so much at stake, perhaps he would understand?

A burst of gunfire sounded from a distance, sending a shiver down Manohar’s spine.  

He turned to look, almost as if seeking reassurance, at the only other person in the hut—a young man of just over twenty. He was six feet tall, with broad shoulders, a firm gait and a steady gaze. For all of Manohar’s anxiety, the young man had not displayed any sign of nervousness. In fact, he had not moved an inch in the entire time that Manohar had shuffled around the hut.

For the first time in the last hour, Manohar permitted himself a sigh of satisfaction. Wherever else he might be going wrong, he was confident that he had not erred in his choice of person for the task.

Manohar opened his mouth to speak, but his voice failed him. Millions of lives at stake. Who was he to decide? He wished to somehow reach the leaders in jail and pass on the responsibility to them. Or, by some magical toss of fate, come face-to-face with Ram Manohar Lohia, who was broadcasting over underground radio from an unknown, hiding place.

But then his memory took him to the village that the young man and he had visited recently. The sunken eyes, the shrivelled bodies, the sheer horror of everything, and he knew that he had to act.

With supreme effort, he summoned up some energy and croaked, ‘Beta, the time has come.’

The collective weight of history had just been transferred to the young man’s shoulders. However, he did not even bat an eyelid. That, in fact, was precisely why he had been chosen.

‘And Beta,’ Manohar added as an afterthought, ‘remember, you need to wait till the last of them is gone. Till the danger is no more.’

The young man merely nodded and bowed as he left the hut in two swift steps.

Excerpted with permission from S. Venkatesh’s Kaalkoot.

You’re never too old to play with Barbie ― especially when you’ve been waiting 37 years for one you can see yourself in.

Jessica Jewett is a Georgia-based author and artist who was born with arthrogryposis multiplex congenita and uses a wheelchair. When she learned this week through Instagram that the iconic doll brand is expanding and diversifying its offerings to include a Barbie with a prosthetic limb and a Barbie who uses a wheelchair, she had an emotional reaction.

“It just took me back to being 5, 6, 7 years old, asking my mom and grandma why there aren’t dolls that look like me,” she told HuffPost. “I used to ask all the time why Barbie’s parent company Mattel couldn’t make a wheelchair for the doll.”

It’s a long time coming for Jewett, who wrote on Twitter Tuesday that this was the toy she “needed as a little girl.” Growing up in the ’80s, she has no memory of seeing herself represented in dolls and toys like her friends did.

“I would just start making up my own thing instead, which is probably why I became a writer,” she said. “I ended up having to make up my own stories that had nothing to do with me, because there was nothing like me out there.”

That lack of representation and accessibility followed Jewett into other aspects of her life, as well. At her elementary school, the special education classrooms were in a back room, where she said the teachers were more like babysitters than actual teachers.

“I used to sort of have this feeling from a really young age that I was different, but not understanding why that difference was something to be hidden,” she said. She went from shy kid to child advocate at just 12 years old, when her middle school refused to build an entrance ramp for her to use.

“My mom and I said, ‘You have summer break to fix this building to come up with the law, otherwise we’re coming back with television cameras and the public can decide what you should do,’” she said. “I realized that it worked and made a difference ― I was the first disabled student in my middle school, and the other disabled students who came after me came because I took a stand and said this had to change.”

Accessibility remains a pressing issue in many parts of the U.S. ― which is one reason Jewett was so excited to see that Mattel will now also offer a ramp that is compatible with the doll’s famous DreamHouse set.

“The fact that Barbie actually thought, ‘Hey, we need to bring a ramp into this so kids can put her wheelchair in their DreamHouse’ is extremely important, because it extends the need for accessibility beyond the person ― it extends it to real-life settings through the imagination of a child playing with this toy,” she said. “They’re going to see this ramp and then see it in real life, and understand what it’s for and why it’s important.” 

Jewett praised Mattel for doing something she said would have meant “everything” to her as a little girl. And while there is still a long way to go when it comes to representation, Jewett has a few ideas on how to continue advancing this kind of inclusive messaging. It starts, she says, with what we see on television. 

“There really needs to be more actors with disabilities in commercials,” she said. “Not children who are able-bodied pretending to have a disability, but children with disabilities. So the kids watching at home will see them and start to normalize our experiences from a very young age. It needs to be visually impactful from a very young age.”

The new Barbie dolls, some of which include features like a new braided hair texture and a greater diversity of body types, will be available in June. To learn more about Jewett, including how she creates beautiful artwork using her mouth, head to her website. 

JAMMU — Curfew was imposed in Jammu city on Friday and the Army conducted flag marches in sensitive areas following massive protests and incidents of stone-pelting and arson over the Pulwama terror attack in which 40 CRPF jawans were killed, officials said.

Internet was shutdown in Jammu as a precautionary measure, they said.

Defying curfew, angry people took out rallies against the attack and police had to cane charge to disperse the protestors at Residency Road, Kachi Chawani and Dogra hall areas, while a bandh was observed in the city.

Five vehicles were set afire in Gujjar Nagar area, while several others were overturned by protesters who alleged that there was stone-pelting on them from rooftops when they were taking out marches against the attack, they said.

The curfew was imposed in Jammu city as authorities feared a communal backlash, the officials said.

Divisional Commissioner Sanjay Verma told PTI that the administration had called for the Army’s help which conducted flag marches in Gujjar Nagar, Shaheedi Chowk areas.

Verma said additional forces were deployed in sensitive areas.

As per reports, the violence was triggered when a rally was being held in Gujjar Nagar area and some people threw bricks on the protesters from rooftops.

Purported videos of stone-pelting from the rooftops and burning of vehicles went viral on social media.

Police teams rushed to the spot and resorted to teargas shelling and cane charge to disperse angry protestors.

Jammu Chamber of Commerce and Industries (JCCI) had Thursday called for a shutdown in Jammu in protest against the killing of CRPF jawans in the terror attack.

A complete bandh was observed in Jammu, with no traffic plying on roads and all shops and markets remaining closed, officials said.

Massive anti-Pakistan protests were held at Jewel Chowk, Purani Mundi, Rehari, Shaktinagar, Pacca Danga, Janipur, Gandhinagar, Bakshinagar, Muthi, Talal Tilloo and Satwari among other areas.

Raising anti-Pakistan and anti-terrorists slogans, the protesters burnt tyres and placed barricades on several roads, saying Pakistan was a sponsor of terrorism in the valley.

Led by Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena and Dogra front, the people also took out candlelight marches in the city and held protests.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Jammu, suspended work in all courts in the city, including the high court and tribunals, as a mark of respect and to express solidarity with the bereaved families.

Ikkjutt, an organisation advocating tri-furcation of Jammu and Kashmir, paid floral tributes to the 40 personnel killed.

Its patron, Hari Om, said the situation in the state had turned very alarming. He lashed out at former chief ministers, claiming their security should be withdrawn as they were preaching soft-separatism in the garb of mainstream politics.

NEW DELHI — The day after the worst militant attackin Kashmir in over two decades, Prime Minister Narendra Modi flagged off a new high-speed train, and then travelled to Jhansi for a public address where he vowed to avenge the deaths of at least 40 Central Reserve Police Force troopers, who were killed when a suicide bomber attacked a convoy in Pulwama.

“The country’s blood is boiling,” Modi said, in a speech that sounded more like campaign rally than a sombre address to the nation. “The security forces have been given free rein.”

A few hours before the Jhansi speech, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley addressed the press after a high-level meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security, where he announced that the government was revoking Pakistan’s “Most Favoured Nation” trading status.

Meanwhile Home Minister Rajnath Singh, the minister charged with ensuring India’s internal security, quietly caught a flight to Srinagar to ostensibly take stock of Kashmir’s rapidly escalating spiral violence — a task he is nominally tasked with overseeing, but in practice has come to epitomise just how peripheral he has become in the five years that he has served in the Modi government.

Earlier this week, HuffPost India spoke with a cross-section of politicians, senior officials in the government, and security analysts to understand if Prime Minister Modi’s autocratic approach to government posed a threat to India’s security. Our sources were interviewed prior to the deadly Pulwama attack, but their comments proved eerily prescient.

“The truth is that he has been upstaged by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s Office and even the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley,” said Yashwant Sinha, a former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member-turned-critic, who has served as the Minister of Finance and Minister of External Affairs in the Vajpayee government.

“Very recently it was Mr Jaitley who addressed the parliament on the issue of President’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir. He is the finance minister, is that his job?” asked Sinha. “Shouldn’t the Home Minister, who directly overlooks Kashmir, be making a statement on crucial issues like these?”

Yet Singh’s rapid and visible marginalisation has implications that go far beyond the BJP’s internecine power struggles. The rapidly deteriorating situation in Kashmir makes clear that the country, as a whole, is paying the price of having a Home Minister only in name.

With Singh effectively silenced, Kashmir’s complex, multi-dimensional conflict, some say, has been handled by Modi — an impulsive, inexperienced, first-time Prime Minister with little national exposure prior to assuming office — and National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval, a wily intelligence operative working from a playbook entirely premised on military intervention.

“Today the situation is that senior ministers are not in control of their ministries, policies are framed by the PMO alone,” Sinha said. “The officers and bureaucrats report directly to the PMO and NSA and there are times when the ministers get to know what is happening in their ministry much later.”

“Have you watched Uri?” said a senior bureaucrat evasively, referring to the 2019 Bollywood movie on the surgical strikes that followed a militant attack on an army garrison in September 2016. “Compare the characterization of the National Security Advisor with that of Home Minister. See how the Home Minister is portrayed”.  

Rajnath Versus Doval

While politicians are frequently maligned for their expediency, conflict watchers have long sought a political solution to seemingly intractable insurgencies like the one in Kashmir.

In his tenure as Home Minister, Singh has consistently prioritised dialogue and engagement, senior government officials said, only to be shouldered aside by Doval’s so-called “muscular approach”.

“The Home Minister took some major steps in Kashmir such as giving amnesty to stone pelters and the Ramzan ceasefire, but other than that it has been a difficult time for Mr Rajnath,” said a senior government official, adding that Singh was in favour of extending the ceasefire but was overruled. “It started right after he took charge, and worsened after the fall of BJP-PDP government.”

The official said that Singh was not even informed when the BJP toppled Kashmir’s elected government by pulling out of the alliance with the People’s Democratic Party, a claim substantiated by a senior PDP representative, who said the backroom moves were engineered by the BJP National General Secretary Ram Madhav.

“It was Mr Madhav all the way,” the PDP leader said.

Madhav did not reply to several calls and messages from HuffPost India. Singh’s office said he did not have the time to speak, given his commitments during the parliament session.

“In areas where there has been great unrest such as Kashmir, north east, the home ministry and home minister has been unable to initiate mechanism so that our people in those regions are not pushed out or away from the country,” said Arun Shourie, a one-time BJP minister-turned-dissident, who has known Singh for many years. “Under the current PM, like every other minister such as defence, external affairs, finance, Rajnath has had no scope for implementing or perhaps or even thinking new ideas.”

Shourie said that Doval was pretty much driving India’s Kashmir policy on his own, contrasting Modi’s government with the Vajpayee cabinet, where India’s security posture was set by the Prime Minister, Home Minister LK Advani, and Brijesh Mishra, who was the NSA at the time.

“Mr Brijesh Mishra was very close to the PM but he would not do anything that the PM would not approve. Also no one at that time thought he could direct a person like Mr  Advani who was the Home Minister,” Shourie said, speaking of his time in the Vajpayee government. “But today, ministers count for nothing. Anyone speaking on behalf of PM like my friend Mr Doval, well, let’s say his words counts.”

Security analysts agree.

Ajai Sahni, Director of the Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management, contrasted the situation in Kashmir — where Modi and Doval have taken an active interest — with the Maoist conflict in Chhattisgarh, which has been largely left to Singh’s Home Ministry.

“Talking purely from the internal security point of view, wherever there hasn’t been an interference, situation has improved,” Sahni said. “For instance, Naxal-affected regions have shown improvement in the last few years but at the same time look at what is happening in Kashmir.”

Sahni indicated that the Indian government’s policy on Kashmir appeared unduly influenced by the BJP’s political impulses. A prime example is “Operation All Out”, a much-hyped military operation that was intended to eliminate suspected militants but resulted in alienating the state’s population instead. The operation was launched in 2017 to much fanfare; the following year the valley’s youth joined the militancy in record numbers — 200 new recruits, compared to 126 in 2017, and only 6 in 2013.

“Our policies towards Kashmir shouldn’t be undermined by aspirations  of government formation and that is exactly what is happening,” Sahni said. “What specialization does Mr Ram Madhav or current state governor Mr Satya Pal Malik possess to be placed in positions that determine our Kashmir policy?”

PMO Versus Home Ministry

A senior government official said Singh was not even granted a say in appointments to his own ministry.

By convention, the Department for Personnel and Training (DoPT) would propose an appointment to the Home Ministry, which would pass on the file to the intelligence bureau before finally being cleared by the Home Minister, who would inform the Prime Minister.

“Now what is happening is that the DoPT is sending these proposals directly to the PMO who then passes on the same to IB,” the official said.

Internal government documents confirm Doval’s ascent at the cost of Singh’s isolation.

On March 6, 2018, a crucial security review meeting  on Jammu and Kashmir took place in the National Capital that was attended by the top brass of India’s security apparatus, according to documents accessed by HuffPost India.

The meeting was attended by a wide-spectrum of senior security officials, all of whom report to Singh. The attendees included Union Home Secretary Rajiv Gauba, Director of Intelligence Bureau (IB) Rajiv Jain, Director General of National Investigation Agency (NIA) YC Modi , then Director General (DG) of J&K police SP Vaid and Additional DG of J&K police Munir Khan.

Several key decisions were taken in the meeting, including decisions on the possible deployment of the National Security Guard (NSG), a paramilitary force under the Ministry of Home Affairs, to Kashmir.  

The only significant absence at the meeting was Rajnath Singh. Instead, the meeting was chaired by Ajit Doval.

Modi Versus Rajnath

When HuffPost asked a senior government official if there were differences between Modi and Rajnath Singh, the officer stood up from his chair, turned up the volume on his television set to max, and gestured to remove all mobile phones from his desk, before he finally spoke.

As the crucial 2019 general elections draw close, the BJP-led government, and the bureaucrats it oversees are paranoid that a senior leader like Singh, or Nitin Gadkari, will strike a deal with allies to sideline Modi. Modi’s abrasive and autocratic methods, the thinking goes, has alienated many allies within the National Democratic Alliance; allies who would welcome an opportunity to do business with someone more accommodating.

Gadkari’s frequent outbursts against the government have already earned him a visit from a senior BJP intermediary allied with Modi and his henchman, BJP President Amit Shah.

Singh has remained largely tight-lipped thus far, but officers close to him say he still nurses the the thought that, one day, he too could become Prime Minister.

“If BJP comes back with a full majority, Mr Rajnath Singh’s portfolio will remain the same or he might be made a minister in some other ministry.  Not an ideal situation for him,” said a senior central government official. “But if BJP wins between 160 -200, then he will be sought after because one thing that you can’t deny about him is that he is good at winning friends over.”

In Patna last week, Singh finally let his mask slip and his ambitions shine through.

In a public gathering, he took it on himself to defend Modi in context of clear signs that the Prime Minister violated established procedures, and favoured Anil Ambani’s Reliance Group, in the procurement of Rafale fighter aircraft from France.
″I feel very hurt. I have known Modi for long,” Rajnath said, following the expected script, before adding a sly caveat. “You can level other allegations if you want — that Modi has worked less or he could have done more — but no one can raise questions on the prime minister’s honesty and intention.”

ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI — A Pakistan-based militant group, Jaish-e-Mohammad, has taken responsibility for the deadliest attack on security forces in Kashmir in 30 years of insurgency, ratcheting up tension between the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours.

India says the group and its leader, Masood Azhar, enjoy free rein in Pakistan, and demands that Pakistan acts to stop militant groups operating from its soil.

Pakistan condemned the Thursday bomb attack that killed 44 paramilitary policemen but denied any complicity.

India has blamed Jaish for a series of attacks including a 2001 raid on its parliament in New Delhi that led to India mobilising its military on the border, bringing the foes to the brink of a fourth war.

Who are the Jaish-e-Mohammad and what have they done?

Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), or Army of Mohammad, has ties to other Sunni militant groups in Pakistan such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. It was banned in Pakistan in 2002 but US authorities say it still operates there openly.

Founded in 2000 after the release of Azhar from an Indian prison in exchange for 155 hostages from a hijacked Indian Airlines plane, it has claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings in Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state, which is also claimed by Pakistan.

The group, which aims to unite Kashmir with Pakistan, has repeatedly caused tension between India and Pakistan. Along with LeT, it was involved in attacks in 2001 on the Indian parliament and the Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly building.

Pakistan rejects Indian accusations that it harbours and sustains the group. Pakistani authorities have linked JeM with two assassination attempts on former President Pervez Musharraf in 2003 as well as the kidnap and murder of US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002.

Where do they operate and who is Masood Azhar?

While Kashmir is the focus of Jaish operations, the group was based in Bhawalpur, a dust-blown Pakistani town on the border with India in the south of Punjab province. Media reports and Indian intelligence sources have suggested that a walled headquarters, as well as another large premises on the outskirts of the city, are used to recruit and train youngsters from the impoverished region.

The Jaish is listed as one of 33 banned organisations by Pakistan’s National Counter-Terrorism Authority, which states on its website that the ban came on 14 January, 2002. But the group has never hidden its existence, frequently issuing videos threatening India, and also the United States.

After a period of silence, the portly Azhar surfaced in a video in 2014, boasting of 300 suicide bombers at his command and threatening to kill Narendra Modi if he became India’s prime minister.

Despite many rumours, his whereabouts have been officially unknown since a 2016 attack on an Indian air force base in Pathankot in Indian Punjab.

What is the diplomatic wrangling over the group?

In 2001, the UN Security Council blacklisted the Jaish, tying it to al Qaeda, and accusing it of participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of al Qaeda acts.

But the group has floated in and out of the shadows and a US State Department report last year said Pakistan had not cracked down on the activities of JeM and other groups that aim mainly to operate outside its territory.

“The government failed to significantly limit LeT and JeM from openly raising money, recruiting, and training in Pakistan,” it said.

While Jaish was blacklisted by the UN Security Council, India’s efforts to get Azhar sanctioned have been blocked by China, it says. China has put a technical hold each time India has pushed the issue in the council.

On Friday, China said it condemned the latest attack in Kashmir, and noted that Jaish, which claimed the attack, was already on a U.N. sanctions list. As for its leader is concerned, the relevant committee had rules and processes for listing people, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said.

US President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency at the southern U.S. border in an effort to unilaterally seize funding to begin building his long-promised wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

Trump, who was accompanied by parents of children killed by unauthorized immigrants, said he was declaring the national emergency for “virtual invasion purposes.” 

But he also acknowledged another reason: He didn’t want to wait on Congress to approve the funds.

“I could do the wall over a longer period of time ― I didn’t need to do this,” Trump said in a televised speech, even as he contended the situation on the southern border amounted to a national emergency. “But I’d rather do it much faster.”

Trump is also expected to approve Congress’ spending bill, which grants him $1.375 billion for the wall, as opposed to the $5.7 billion he initially demanded. The national emergency declaration gives Trump a chance to reroute other government money to fund the project ― and sets up a legal battle that could tie up the president’s signature project for months or years.

To justify the wall, Trump repeatedly insisted criminals, gang members and drug traffickers were pouring over the border and that only a wall could stop them. 

“We have far more people trying to get into our country today than probably ever before,” Trump said.

In fact, arrests for illegal border crossings are at their lowest levels since the 1970s. There were roughly 520,000 arrests for unauthorized border crossings last year, which is about one-third of the 1.6 million arrests that happened in 2000. Since 2014, a high proportion of those crossing have been Central American children and families seeking to make humanitarian claims such as asylum. 

The total wall funding will now come to about $8 billion, partially approved by Congress but mostly by Trump alone. That will buy the administration some 234 miles of border wall, a senior administration official told reporters Friday.

The national emergency declaration will allow the Trump administration to use about $3.6 billion from Defense Department construction projects to build the wall, along with another $2.5 billion the department had allocated for counter-drug activities, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney told reporters. 

The Trump administration also plans to take executive action to move about $200 million from the Department of Homeland Security and another $600 million from the Treasury Department’s asset forfeiture account.  

None of the money will come from hurricane relief, Mulvaney said. 

The DHS funding bill included restrictions on where new border wall could be constructed. Those restrictions won’t apply to the portions built with national emergency money, a senior administration official said. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced Thursday on the Senate floor that Trump planned to sign the bill and declare a national emergency at the same time, adding that he supported the decision. Congress passed a government funding bill Thursday evening.

McConnell warned Trump in private that declaring an emergency would spark a backlash among Republicans, according to The Washington Post. 

A national emergency declaration grants a president the ability to circumvent certain government rules so that an administration can respond to a crisis. In this case, Trump is sidestepping Congress so that he can gain access to certain federal funds without congressional approval.

Administration officials cited dozens of previous national emergency declarations, insisting that Trump would not break with historical precedent by “unlocking” new pots of money for the border wall he seeks.

“It’s not as if he didn’t get what he wanted, so he’s waving a magic wand and taking the money,” Mulvaney said.

The move is almost certain to be challenged in court.

“Any crisis on our border is of President Trump’s own making: family separations, child detention, turning our backs on asylum seekers, and more. There is no national emergency,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has sued the Trump administration multiple times, said in a statement. “If Trump oversteps his authority and abandons negotiations with Congress by declaring a fabricated national emergency, we won’t only call his bluff, we will do what we must to hold him accountable.”

Prior to the declaration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the proclamation a “gross abuse of the power of the presidency” and vowed that “Congress will defend our constitutional authorities.”

For two months, Democrats in Congress have been enmeshed in stalled negotiations with Trump as he refused to accept anything less than $5.7 billion in the federal budget for his border wall. The stalemate caused a record-breaking partial government shutdown that forced an estimated 800,000 government employees to go without pay for 35 days.

Trump reopened the government for three weeks on Jan. 25, allowing government workers to get back to work as border security negotiations continued.

In January, Trump asserted that he had “the absolute right to declare a national emergency,” according to CNN. He called it “the easy route” while insisting that he’d rather Congress approve his border wall funding.

US President Donald Trump on Friday admitted that he “didn’t need to” declare a national emergency for his long-promised border wall, and merely wanted to “do it much faster” to please his political base.

A number of legal experts — including George Conway, husband of top Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway — immediately noted on Twitter that those words could easily be used against him in the likely legal battle over his questionable claim to a national emergency.

Trump openly acknowledged the possibility during his remarks Friday, predicting that he would lose in the lower courts.

It would not be the first time Trump’s words have been used against him in court.

The ACLU, which has frequently sued Trump and his administration, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Omar Jadwat, the director of ACLU’s Immigrant Rights Project, urged the president to “keep talking” in a tweet.

Following his announcement Friday, Trump is heading to his golf club in Florida for the weekend, further underscoring the dubious nature of his “national emergency.”

CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta faced off again against US President Donald Trump, accusing the president on Friday of playing fast and loose with the facts to justify his declaration of a national emergency at the southwestern border. Trump blasted CNN as “fake news” in response.

Acosta asked Trump to address the “disconnect” between what he said is happening at the border versus actual “crime data,” including from the Department of Homeland Security. Acosta said that illegal border crossings are at a near-record low (which occurred early in Trump’s presidency but which he took credit for Friday) and that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than American citizens.

“You don’t really believe that,” Trump responded, referring to the crime data. “Take a look at our federal prisons.”

Acosta shot back, “I believe in facts and statistics.”

He asked Trump about criticism that he has “concocted a national emergency” to build his border wall.

The president pointed to six women invited to the Rose Garden whom he called “angel moms,” whose children died because of crimes or accidents linked to undocumented immigrants. (One child died of a drug overdose, according to ABC News.)

“Ask these incredible women who lost their daughters and their sons, OK?” Trump said. “Your question is a very political question, because you have an agenda. You’re CNN. You’re fake news.”

Playboy’s White House correspondent, Brian Karen, later asked similar questions, pressing Trump for facts to back up his claims. At one point the president said he uses “many stats.” Asked to share those figures, Trump responded, “Let me tell you, you have stats that are far worse than the ones that I use, but I use many stats.”

Check out Trump’s angry reaction to Acosta in the video above.

Acosta later highlighted the tragedy of the “angel moms” on CNN.