Addressing the queries regarding the plight of Indian fishermen detained in Sri Lanka during the question hour in Rajya Sabha on Thursday, External Affairs Minister S Jaishanker said that the current government inherited the situation due to events that can be traced back to 1974 and 1976.
Mr. Jaishankar detailed Sri Lanka’s legal framework, stating, “Sri Lanka has two laws — the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act of 1996 and the Fisheries Regulation of Foreign Fishing Boats of 1979. Both these acts were amended in 2018 and 2023, providing for much stiffer sentences, bigger fines, and greater detention.”

He explained that many of those serving sentences are boat owners, skippers, or repeat offenders, complicating resolution efforts. He stated that the “root cause” of the ongoing issue related to the detention of Indian fishermen in Sri Lanka began in 1974 when the international maritime boundary line was drawn, followed by an exchange of letters in 1976 with Sri Lanka delineating fishing jurisdiction.

“The house is aware that, in a way, our government has inherited the problem. This problem began in 1974 when the international maritime boundary line was drawn, followed by an exchange of letters in 1976 delineating fishing jurisdiction. These decisions are the root cause of the situation,” EAM said while replying to the question raised by DMK MP Tiruchi Siva.

Mr. Jaishanakar further noted that the majority of the fishermen detained in Sri Lanka are from Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry due to geographical proximity.

“Because it is Sri Lanka, it is natural that the majority of the fishermen will be from Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry,” he said, outlining the issue’s regional context.

Providing an update on the number of fishermen detained in Sri Lanka, Mr. Jaishankar said, “Till yesterday, there were 86 Indian fishermen in Sri Lankan custody. Today, one more trawler has been apprehended, adding 11 more fishermen. So, in total, 97 are in custody — 83 are serving sentences, three are awaiting trial, and 11 have been apprehended today.”

Earlier on Thursday, the Sri Lankan Navy apprehended 11 Tamil Nadu fishermen and took them to Kangesanthurai Naval camp for investigation, as per officials.

According to the Rameswaram Fishermen Association, 11 Tamil Nadu fishermen were apprehended in one boat fishing in the Bay of Bengal in Tamil Nadu.

11 Indian fishermen from Tamil Nadu held; one trawler seized by Sri Lankan Navy

Meanwhile, seven fishermen who were arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy were released from prison and reached Chennai Airport, Tamil Nadu, today.

Four of the fishermen were arrested on February 20 and the other three on 22 February, allegedly for cross-border fishing.

(thehindu.com)

Papua New Guinea has blocked access to Facebook in what authorities call a “test” to limit hate speech, misinformation and pornography.

The sudden ban, which started on Monday, has drawn criticism from opposition MPs and political critics, who called it a violation of human rights.

Defending the move, Police Minister Peter Tsiamalili Jr said the government is not trying to suppress free speech, but that it has the “responsibility to protect citizens from harmful content”.

Facebook is the most popular social media platform in Papua New Guinea, with an estimated 1.3 million users – including many small businesses that rely on it for sales.

Social media has also been key in facilitating public discourse amid declining press freedom in the country.

Neville Choi, president of Papua New Guinea’s media council, said the move “borders on political autocracy, and an abuse of human rights”.

More concerning was the fact that at least two government agencies that oversee communication and technology said they were unaware of the government’s plans, Mr Choi pointed out, despite the police saying its “test” was done in partnership with these agencies.

“We are now heading into dangerous territory and everyone is powerless to stop this tyranny,” opposition MP Allan Bird wrote on Facebook.

Monday’s ban comes months after the passing of new counter-terrorism laws, which gives the government powers to monitor and restrict online communications, , among other things.

“It is draconian law designed to take away our freedoms,” Bird wrote, adding that the blocking of Facebook was “just step one”.

Despite the ban, many users have still been able to access Facebook using virtual private networks, or VPNs.

John Pora, who chairs the Small and Medium Enterprises Corporation, is more concerned about the thousands of retailers who earn their livelihoods on Facebook.

“We have a couple of hundred thousand people in the informal sector and they’ll be feeling uncertain, so I’m hoping the systems come back online soon to allow them to trade,” he said.

Papua New Guinea authorities have long threatened to make a move against Facebook. In 2018, the country banned the platform for a month while authorities attempted to root out fake profiles. At the time, authorities mooted the idea of a state-run alternative.

In 2023 Papua New Guinea launched a parliamentary inquiry into “fake news, bad news reporting and social media [platforms]” in the country.

(BBC News)

President Donald Trump expressed support on Tuesday for his national security adviser, Michael Waltz, after a magazine journalist said on Monday that Waltz had accidentally included him in a discussion of highly sensitive war plans on the messaging app Signal.
“Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man,” Trump told NBC News in a phone interview.

U.S. senators were set to grill Trump’s top intelligence officials on Tuesday about the apparent breach, which triggered outrage and disbelief among Democrats and national security experts.

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, said in a report on Monday that Waltz unexpectedly added him on March 13 to an encrypted chat group on the Signal messaging app coordinating U.S. action against the Yemen rebel group over its attacks on Red Sea shipping.

National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said the chat group appeared to be authentic. The White House said it was looking into how Goldberg’s number was added to the thread.

Democrats – and some of Trump’s fellow Republicans – called for an investigation of what appeared to be a major security breach. Classified and sensitive information is not supposed to be shared on commercial mobile phone apps, and unknown numbers – such as Goldberg’s – should not be included.

Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were to question two of the administration officials on the chat – Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe – on Tuesday during the panel’s annual hearing on Worldwide Threats to U.S. Security.

In his opening statement, Senator Mark Warner, the Democratic vice chairman of the intelligence committee, said a military or intelligence officer who took similar action would be fired.”Yesterday, we stunningly learned that senior members of this administration, and according to reports, two of our witnesses here today, were members of a group chat that discussed highly sensitive and likely classified information that supposedly even included weapons packages, targets and timing and included the name of an active CIA agent,” he said.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused Goldberg of sensationalizing the story in a post on X and asserted that no war plans were discussed and no classified material was sent to the thread.In his article, Goldberg wrote that hours before the U.S. launched strikes against Yemen’s Houthis on March 15, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted operational details about the plan in the messaging group, “including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”

His report omitted the details out of national security concerns, but Goldberg termed it a “shockingly reckless” use of a Signal chat.SECURITY RISKS

It remained unclear why the officials chose to chat via Signal rather than the secure government channels typically used for sensitive discussions.

Signal has a “stellar reputation and is widely used and trusted in the security community,” said Rocky Cole, whose cybersecurity firm iVerify helps protect smartphone users from hackers.

“The risk of discussing highly sensitive national security information on Signal isn’t so much that Signal itself is insecure,” Cole added. “It’s the fact that nation states threat actors have a demonstrated ability to remotely compromise the entire mobile phone itself. If the phone itself isn’t secure, all the Signal messages on that device can be read.”Accounts that appeared to represent Vice President JD Vance, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Ratcliffe, Gabbard, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, and senior National Security Council officials were assembled in the chat group, Goldberg wrote.

While some Democrats called for officials on the chat to lose their security clearances or resign, there was no immediate word on whether any official would face consequences.

White House officials and some fellow Republicans instead stressed that the attack on the Houthis had gone off without a hitch.

(Reuters)