The Evening Wrap: Russia says it prefers to achieve Ukraine goals via talks

Russia will achieve its goal of ensuring Ukraine’s neutral status and would prefer to do that through talks, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday. Moscow’s aims do not include overthrowing the Kyiv government and it hopes to achieve more significant progress in the next round of talks with Ukraine, Zakharova told a briefing, adding that Russia’s military operation was going strictly in line with its plan. Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he is no longer pressing for NATO membership for Ukraine, a delicate issue that was one of Russia’s stated reasons for invading its pro-Western neighbour. In another apparent nod aimed at placating Moscow, Zelenskyy said he is open to “compromise” on the status of two breakaway pro-Russian territories that President Vladimir Putin recognised as independent just before unleashing the invasion on February 24. “I have cooled down regarding this question a long time ago after we understood that... NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said in an interview aired on Monday night (U.S. time) on ABC News. “The alliance is afraid of controversial things, and confrontation with Russia,” the President added. Referring to NATO membership, Zelenskyy said through an interpreter that he does not want to be President of a “country which is begging something on its knees.” Russia has said it does not want neighbouring Ukraine to join NATO, the transatlantic alliance created at the start of the Cold War to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. In more recent years the alliance has expanded further and further east to take in former Soviet bloc countries, infuriating the Kremlin. Russia sees NATO enlargement as a threat, as it does the military posture of these new Western allies on its doorstep. Shortly before he shocked the world by ordering the invasion of Ukraine, Putin recognised as independent two separatist pro-Russian “republics” in eastern Ukraine -- Donetsk and Luhansk -- that have been at war with Kyiv since 2014. Putin now wants Ukraine, too, to recognise them as sovereign and independent. When ABC asked him about this Russian demand, Zelenskyy said he was open to dialogue. “I’m talking about security guarantees,” he said. He said these two regions “have not been recognised by anyone but Russia, these pseudo republics. But we can discuss and find the compromise on how these territories will live on.” “What is important to me is how the people in those territories are going to live who want to be part of Ukraine, who in Ukraine will say that they want to have them in,” Zelenskyy said. “So the question is more difficult than simply acknowledging them,” the President said. “This is another ultimatum and we are not prepared for ultimatums. What needs to be done is for President Putin to start talking, start the dialogue instead of living in the informational bubble without oxygen.” Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: Supreme Court releases Perarivalan on bail The Supreme Court on Tuesday released Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan on bail, taking into account the fact he has suffered over 30 years of imprisonment, in spite of vehement objections raised by the Centre. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai found Perarivalan was entitled to be released on bail considering his conduct during his long incarceration, including acquisition of educational qualifications, and ill-health. The Bench directed that Perarivalan’s bail would be subject to conditions imposed by the trial court concerned. He shall have to report to the local police station. The top court did not ask Perarivalan, represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan and advocate Prabu Ramasubramanian, to surrender his passport as he does not possess one. Though the Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, urged the court to direct Perarivalan to report before the CBI as part of his condition for bail, the Bench decided to spare him the 100-km journey from his native Jolarpettai to the CBI office in Chennai. Perarivalan is currently on parole, but, according to Sankaranarayan, was restricted from either stepping out of his house or meeting anyone. At the end of a nearly hour-long hearing, the court listed Perarivalan’s case for further hearing in April on the question of the powers of the Governor to decide the question of his early release, which was approved by the Tamil Nadu Cabinet, and the Governor’s reference of the matter to the President. Nataraj argued that the State government had no power to entertain the plea for mercy and early release made by Perarivalan, who is serving a life sentence after the commutation of his death penalty. “Here his entire case is based on the argument that his mercy petition is pending and therefore he should be released on bail,” Nataraj argued. “But he has undergone imprisonment for 32 years,” Justice Rao said. “Yes, but he has been convicted and has to undergo imprisonment for life,” Nataraj said. “But you cannot keep delaying the consideration of the mercy of the petition... What is the role of the Governor... sending it to the President?” Justice Rao asked. Sankaranarayan countered that the Centre’s argument was “bogey”. “Suddenly after 70 years it dawns on them how can the Governor decide in the case of this one person... Even the mercy plea of co-accused Nalini is pending before the Governor. The Governor has not sent it to the President. There are 1,032 cases in this entire country. We have lists of cases to show that everything is done by the Governor. This sudden change in the constitutional interpretation seems strange,” Sankaranarayan. The Bench decided to grant Perarivalan bail and then hear the larger questions of law later. “There is sufficient material on his conduct during the long incarceration, acquisition of educational qualifications and his ill-health... Taking into account that he has spent over 30 years’ imprisonment, he is entitled to be released on bail in spite of the vehement objections of the government, subject to the final disposal of the case,” the court ordered. Earlier in the morning, the court said Perarivalan’s case concerned the “important issue” about the power or discretion of the Tamil Nadu Governor to sit on a mercy plea for months and then refer it to the President, Instead of taking an independent call on it under Article 161 of the Constitution. This was despite the fact that the Council of Ministers of Government of Tamil Nadu had recommended Perarivalan’s release on September 9, 2018. “After sleeping over for five years in the Article 161 (pardon) petition and sitting over the recommendation of the State Cabinet to release the petitioner for more than good two and half years, the Union of India, on February 4, has filed an affidavit [in the Supreme Court] stating that Governor has sent the petition to the President, whereas the law is clear that Governor does not have independent discretion,” Perarivalan had contended in the Supreme Court recently. Perarivalan had argued that the “stalemate” over his release from prison was “completely political”. “This is an important issue. We want to go into the question of the Governor’s power to sit on an issue approved by the Cabinet... It cannot be like this. Some order has to be passed... He cannot claim immunity,” the Bench remarked. Cabinet nod for setting up WHO Global Centre for Traditional Medicine The Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on Wednesday approved the establishment of a WHO (World Health Organisation) Global Centre for Traditional Medicine (WHO GCTM) at Jamnagar in Gujarat. An agreement was signed by the Government of India with the world body in this regard. The WHO GCTM, to be established under the Ministry of AYUSH ( Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa and Homoeopathy), will be the first and only global outposted centre (office) for traditional medicines. “The move will help to position AYUSH systems across the globe, provide leadership on global health matters pertaining to traditional medicine, ensure quality, safety and efficacy, accessibility and rational use of traditional medicine while developing specific capacity building and training programmes in the areas of relevance to the objectives and conduct training programmes in campus, residential, or web-based, and through partnerships with the WHO Academy and other strategic partners,’’ a government release said. The move would help develop norms, standards, and guidelines in relevant technical areas, tools and methodologies for collecting data undertaking analytics, and assess impact. The other decisions the Cabinet was appraised of included a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft e.V. (DFG), Germany; MoU signed by the ICMR with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the National Institute of Health of Department of Health and Human Services, U.S.; and the Council’s MoU with Oxford University, U.K. The objective of the MoU with Oxford University includes capacity-building for Indian scientists and researchers, collection of data compliant with international standards and regulatory requirements, development of India towards becoming a regional hub for capacity development using its own funds and following the principles of equity and sovereignty, and building partnership in and beyond data and skill-sharing with equity and transparency. HC seeks Centre’s stand on Delhi Waqf Board plea on de-listing of 123 properties, refuses stay The Delhi High Court on March 9 refused to grant any interim relief to the Delhi Waqf Board in connection with the allotment of a property, purportedly owned by it, to Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and sought the Centre’s stand on its petition concerning the Government’s decision to re-examine the de-listing of its 123 properties. Justice Yahswant Varma said there was no ground to grant a stay and observed that the property was allotted to ITBP sometime in 2017 and in case the Delhi Waqf Board succeeds in the present proceedings, the allotment can be cancelled. “I’m presently not inclined to grant a stay. This is not a place for stay. It is not like the property has gone to private people. We can ask Union to hand it back,” the judge said. The court issued notice on the petition to the Centre, Delhi Development Authority and ITBP Force and directed them to file their response. The Delhi Waqf Board had moved the high court following the constitution of a two-member committee by the Centre to consider the de-listing of Waqf properties even after a report was submitted by a one-member committee on the same issue in 2017. Central Government counsel Kirtiman Singh opposed the grant of interim relief to the petitioner and said that till now, there has not been any construction on the site in question and the Board can approach the court in case of any future grievances. He asserted that the Board should participate in the ongoing proceedings before the committee and the report of one-member committee, which was rejected on account of being inconclusive, can’t be shared with the petitioner. Lawyer Wajeeh Shafiq, appearing for Waqf Board, urged the court to grant an interim stay with respect to the allotment to ITBP and claimed that the petitioner came to know about the allotment only before filing of the present petition. He claimed that the Centre takes action “in the name of national security” and “we burnt our fingers before” with respect to another property. The lawyer also asked the court to exempt the petitioner’s appearance before the present committee but the court refused to pass an order this aspect. Justice Varma said he was not hearing the case finally and asked the Centre to file its response. In the petition, the Delhi Waqf Board has contended that once its properties have been de-listed in 2014 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, there is no provision under the law for recalling the order of withdrawal from acquisition. The petition has further said that the two-member committee is the second such panel appointed by the Centre to re-examine the status of the 123 properties after the one-member committee was formed and emphasised that in the meantime, the Centre transferred one of them in favour of ITBP. “The whole mala fide purpose of appointment of Committee after Committee is to maintain confusion in respect of the title of the petitioner with regard to these waqf properties… “Taking advantage of this, the Union of India has transferred a portion of waqf land comprised in Khasra no. 484, Qadeemi Qabistan, Village South Inderpat, Mathura Road-the waqf property mentioned at serial no. 8 of the first list of de-notified waqf properties-to ‘Indo Tibetan Border Police’,” the petition filed through lawyer Wajeeh Shafiq has contended. The petition claimed that the properties in question are “registered and Gazette notified Waqf properties since more than half a century”, have never been under the possession or control of the government and never has their religious use been changed or even paused. It has asserted that the properties are governed by the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 which prohibits their alienation. The Delhi Waqf Board has challenged the transfer of its property to ITBP and sought a direction of the Centre to take a fresh decision on the report of the one-member committee after affording a reasonable opportunity to it to make submissions. The matter would be heard next on April 28. In brief The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to March 10 the hearing on the question of punishment of fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya, found guilty of contempt. A Bench led by Justice U.U. Lalit is mulling over whether the court can punish Mallya in absentia or whether it should appoint an amicus curiae for him. In a hearing on February 10, the Bench had said it wanted Mr. Mallya, who is believed to be in the United Kingdom, or a lawyer representing him, to come clean on whether he intends to address the court on the punishment. The case has been pushing from one date to another since Mallya was found guilty of contempt by the top court in May 2017. Covid Watch: Numbers and Developments The number of reported coronavirus cases from India stood at 4,29,74,193 at the time of publishing this newsletter, with the death toll at 5,16,022. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 09 MARCH 2022 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Russia says it prefers to achieve Ukraine goals via talks Russia will achieve its goal of ensuring Ukraine’s neutral status and would prefer to do that through talks, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday. [Moscow’s aims do not include overthrowing the Kyiv government]( and it hopes to achieve more significant progress in the next round of talks with Ukraine, Zakharova told a briefing, adding that Russia’s military operation was going strictly in line with its plan. [Children fleeing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine look out of a train at the railway station in Lviv on March 9, 2022. ] Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said [he is no longer pressing for NATO membership for Ukraine]( a delicate issue that was one of Russia’s stated reasons for invading its pro-Western neighbour. In another apparent nod aimed at placating Moscow, Zelenskyy said he is open to “compromise” on the status of two breakaway pro-Russian territories that President Vladimir Putin recognised as independent just before unleashing the invasion on February 24. “I have cooled down regarding this question a long time ago after we understood that ... NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said in an interview aired on Monday night (U.S. time) on ABC News. “The alliance is afraid of controversial things, and confrontation with Russia,” the President added. Referring to NATO membership, Zelenskyy said through an interpreter that he does not want to be President of a “country which is begging something on its knees.” Russia has said it does not want neighbouring Ukraine to join NATO, the transatlantic alliance created at the start of the Cold War to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. In more recent years the alliance has expanded further and further east to take in former Soviet bloc countries, infuriating the Kremlin. Russia sees NATO enlargement as a threat, as it does the military posture of these new Western allies on its doorstep. Shortly before he shocked the world by ordering the invasion of Ukraine, Putin recognised as independent two separatist pro-Russian “republics” in eastern Ukraine -- Donetsk and Luhansk -- that have been at war with Kyiv since 2014. Putin now wants Ukraine, too, to recognise them as sovereign and independent. When ABC asked him about this Russian demand, Zelenskyy said he was open to dialogue. “I’m talking about security guarantees,” he said. He said these two regions “have not been recognised by anyone but Russia, these pseudo republics. But we can discuss and find the compromise on how these territories will live on.” “What is important to me is how the people in those territories are going to live who want to be part of Ukraine, who in Ukraine will say that they want to have them in,” Zelenskyy said. “So the question is more difficult than simply acknowledging them,” the President said. “This is another ultimatum and we are not prepared for ultimatums. What needs to be done is for President Putin to start talking, start the dialogue instead of living in the informational bubble without oxygen.” Rajiv Gandhi assassination case: Supreme Court releases Perarivalan on bail  The Supreme Court on Tuesday [released Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict A.G. Perarivalan on bail]( taking into account the fact he has suffered over 30 years of imprisonment, in spite of vehement objections raised by the Centre. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai found Perarivalan was entitled to be released on bail considering his conduct during his long incarceration, including acquisition of educational qualifications, and ill-health. [A.G. Perarivalan. File] The Bench directed that Perarivalan’s bail would be subject to conditions imposed by the trial court concerned. He shall have to report to the local police station. The top court did not ask Perarivalan, represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan and advocate Prabu Ramasubramanian, to surrender his passport as he does not possess one. Though the Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, urged the court to direct Perarivalan to report before the CBI as part of his condition for bail, the Bench decided to spare him the 100-km journey from his native Jolarpettai to the CBI office in Chennai. Perarivalan is currently on parole, but, according to Sankaranarayan, was restricted from either stepping out of his house or meeting anyone. At the end of a nearly hour-long hearing, the court listed Perarivalan’s case for further hearing in April on the question of the powers of the Governor to decide the question of his early release, which was approved by the Tamil Nadu Cabinet, and the Governor’s reference of the matter to the President. Nataraj argued that the State government had no power to entertain the plea for mercy and early release made by Perarivalan, who is serving a life sentence after the commutation of his death penalty. “Here his entire case is based on the argument that his mercy petition is pending and therefore he should be released on bail,” Nataraj argued. “But he has undergone imprisonment for 32 years,” Justice Rao said. “Yes, but he has been convicted and has to undergo imprisonment for life,” Nataraj said. “But you cannot keep delaying the consideration of the mercy of the petition... What is the role of the Governor... sending it to the President?” Justice Rao asked. Sankaranarayan countered that the Centre’s argument was “bogey”. “Suddenly after 70 years it dawns on them how can the Governor decide in the case of this one person... Even the mercy plea of co-accused Nalini is pending before the Governor. The Governor has not sent it to the President. There are 1,032 cases in this entire country. We have lists of cases to show that everything is done by the Governor. This sudden change in the constitutional interpretation seems strange,” Sankaranarayan. The Bench decided to grant Perarivalan bail and then hear the larger questions of law later. “There is sufficient material on his conduct during the long incarceration, acquisition of educational qualifications and his ill-health... Taking into account that he has spent over 30 years’ imprisonment, he is entitled to be released on bail in spite of the vehement objections of the government, subject to the final disposal of the case,” the court ordered. Earlier in the morning, the court said Perarivalan’s case concerned the “important issue” about the power or discretion of the Tamil Nadu Governor to sit on a mercy plea for months and then refer it to the President, Instead of taking an independent call on it under Article 161 of the Constitution. This was despite the fact that the Council of Ministers of Government of Tamil Nadu had recommended Perarivalan’s release on September 9, 2018. “After sleeping over for five years in the Article 161 (pardon) petition and sitting over the recommendation of the State Cabinet to release the petitioner for more than good two and half years, the Union of India, on February 4, has filed an affidavit [in the Supreme Court] stating that Governor has sent the petition to the President, whereas the law is clear that Governor does not have independent discretion,” Perarivalan had contended in the Supreme Court recently. Perarivalan had argued that the “stalemate” over his release from prison was “completely political”. “This is an important issue. We want to go into the question of the Governor’s power to sit on an issue approved by the Cabinet... It cannot be like this. Some order has to be passed... He cannot claim immunity,” the Bench remarked. Cabinet nod for setting up WHO Global Centre for Traditional Medicine   The Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on Wednesday [approved the establishment of a WHO (World Health Organisation) Global Centre for Traditional Medicine (WHO GCTM) at Jamnagar]( in Gujarat. An agreement was signed by the Government of India with the world body in this regard. The WHO GCTM, to be established under the Ministry of AYUSH ( Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa and Homoeopathy), will be the first and only global outposted centre (office) for traditional medicines. “The move will help to position AYUSH systems across the globe, provide leadership on global health matters pertaining to traditional medicine, ensure quality, safety and efficacy, accessibility and rational use of traditional medicine while developing specific capacity building and training programmes in the areas of relevance to the objectives and conduct training programmes in campus, residential, or web-based, and through partnerships with the WHO Academy and other strategic partners,’’ a government release said. The move would help develop norms, standards, and guidelines in relevant technical areas, tools and methodologies for collecting data undertaking analytics, and assess impact. The other decisions the Cabinet was appraised of included a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft e.V. (DFG), Germany; MoU signed by the ICMR with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the National Institute of Health of Department of Health and Human Services, U.S.; and the Council’s MoU with Oxford University, U.K. The objective of the MoU with Oxford University includes capacity-building for Indian scientists and researchers, collection of data compliant with international standards and regulatory requirements, development of India towards becoming a regional hub for capacity development using its own funds and following the principles of equity and sovereignty, and building partnership in and beyond data and skill-sharing with equity and transparency. HC seeks Centre’s stand on Delhi Waqf Board plea on de-listing of 123 properties, refuses stay   The Delhi High Court on March 9 [refused to grant any interim relief to the Delhi Waqf Board]( in connection with the allotment of a property, purportedly owned by it, to Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and sought the Centre’s stand on its petition concerning the Government’s decision to re-examine the de-listing of its 123 properties. Justice Yahswant Varma said there was no ground to grant a stay and observed that the property was allotted to ITBP sometime in 2017 and in case the Delhi Waqf Board succeeds in the present proceedings, the allotment can be cancelled. “I’m presently not inclined to grant a stay. This is not a place for stay. It is not like the property has gone to private people. We can ask Union to hand it back,” the judge said. The court issued notice on the petition to the Centre, Delhi Development Authority and ITBP Force and directed them to file their response. The Delhi Waqf Board had moved the high court following the constitution of a two-member committee by the Centre to consider the de-listing of Waqf properties even after a report was submitted by a one-member committee on the same issue in 2017. Central Government counsel Kirtiman Singh opposed the grant of interim relief to the petitioner and said that till now, there has not been any construction on the site in question and the Board can approach the court in case of any future grievances. He asserted that the Board should participate in the ongoing proceedings before the committee and the report of one-member committee, which was rejected on account of being inconclusive, can’t be shared with the petitioner. Lawyer Wajeeh Shafiq, appearing for Waqf Board, urged the court to grant an interim stay with respect to the allotment to ITBP and claimed that the petitioner came to know about the allotment only before filing of the present petition. He claimed that the Centre takes action “in the name of national security” and “we burnt our fingers before” with respect to another property. The lawyer also asked the court to exempt the petitioner’s appearance before the present committee but the court refused to pass an order this aspect. Justice Varma said he was not hearing the case finally and asked the Centre to file its response. In the petition, the Delhi Waqf Board has contended that once its properties have been de-listed in 2014 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, there is no provision under the law for recalling the order of withdrawal from acquisition. The petition has further said that the two-member committee is the second such panel appointed by the Centre to re-examine the status of the 123 properties after the one-member committee was formed and emphasised that in the meantime, the Centre transferred one of them in favour of ITBP. “The whole mala fide purpose of appointment of Committee after Committee is to maintain confusion in respect of the title of the petitioner with regard to these waqf properties… “Taking advantage of this, the Union of India has transferred a portion of waqf land comprised in Khasra no. 484, Qadeemi Qabistan, Village South Inderpat, Mathura Road-the waqf property mentioned at serial no. 8 of the first list of de-notified waqf properties-to ‘Indo Tibetan Border Police’,” the petition filed through lawyer Wajeeh Shafiq has contended. The petition claimed that the properties in question are “registered and Gazette notified Waqf properties since more than half a century”, have never been under the possession or control of the government and never has their religious use been changed or even paused. It has asserted that the properties are governed by the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 which prohibits their alienation. The Delhi Waqf Board has challenged the transfer of its property to ITBP and sought a direction of the Centre to take a fresh decision on the report of the one-member committee after affording a reasonable opportunity to it to make submissions. The matter would be heard next on April 28. In brief The Supreme Court on Tuesday [adjourned to March 10 the hearing on the question of punishment of fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya]( found guilty of contempt. A Bench led by Justice U.U. Lalit is mulling over whether the court can punish Mallya in absentia or whether it should appoint an amicus curiae for him. In a hearing on February 10, the Bench had said it wanted Mr. Mallya, who is believed to be in the United Kingdom, or a lawyer representing him, to come clean on whether he intends to address the court on the punishment. The case has been pushing from one date to another since Mallya was found guilty of contempt by the top court in May 2017. Covid Watch: Numbers and Developments The [number of reported coronavirus cases from India]( stood at 4,29,74,193 at the time of publishing this newsletter, with the death toll at 5,16,022.  Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. Today‘s Top Picks [[Upper age limit for NEET-UG removed] Upper age limit for NEET-UG removed]( [[U.S. man who got first pig heart transplant dies two months after surgery] U.S. man who got first pig heart transplant dies two months after surgery]( [[The Hindu Group named Publisher of the Year by WAN-IFRA] The Hindu Group named Publisher of the Year by WAN-IFRA]( [[Shackleton’s ship ‘Endurance’ found beneath Antarctic ice, 100 years on] Shackleton’s ship ‘Endurance’ found beneath Antarctic ice, 100 years on]( Copyright @ 2021, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](