Forces can shoot to kill to quell unrest: Kazakh president
Moscow, Jan 7: Kazakhstan's president authorised security forces on Friday to shoot to kill those participating in unrest, opening the door for a dramatic escalation in a crackdown on anti-government protests that have turned violent.
The Central Asian nation this week experienced its worst street protests since gaining independence from the Soviet Union three decades ago, and dozens have been killed in the tumult.
The demonstrations began over a near-doubling of prices for a type of vehicle fuel but quickly spread across the country, reflecting wider discontent with authoritarian rule.
In a televised address to the nation, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev used harsh rhetoric, referring to those involved in the turmoil as terrorists, bandits and militants though it was unclear what led the peaceful protests to first gather steam and then descend into violence. No protest leaders have emerged so far.
I have given the order to law enforcement and the army to shoot to kill without warning, Tokayev said.
Those who don't surrender will be eliminated.
Concerns grew in recent days that an even broader crackdown might be coming, as internet and cellphone service was severely disrupted and sometimes totally blocked, and several airports closed making it difficult to understand what was happening inside the country and for images of the unrest to reach the outside world.
Adding to those fears was Tokayev's request for help from a Russia-led military alliance, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, whose troops began arriving Thursday.
On Friday, Kazakhstan's Interior Ministry reported that security forces have killed 26 protesters during the unrest, which escalated sharply on Wednesday.
Another 26 were wounded and more than 3,800 people have been detained. A total of 18 law enforcement officers were reported killed, and over 700 injured.
The numbers could not be independently verified, and it was not clear if more people may have died in the melee as the protests turned extremely violent, with people storming government buildings and setting them ablaze.
More skirmishes in Almaty were reported on Friday morning. Russia's state news agency Tass reported that the building occupied by the Kazakh branch of the Mir broadcaster, funded by several former Soviet states, was on fire.
But in other parts of the country life started to return to normal. On Friday morning, news reports said the internet was partially restored in the capital, Nur-Sultan, but it remained unclear for how long.
The Almaty airport stormed and seized earlier by the protesters was back under the control of Kazakh law enforcement and CTSO forces, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen.
Igor Konashenkov said. But the facility will remain shut at least until Sunday, the Kazakh TV channel Khabar 24 reported, citing the airport's spokespeople.
Hours before he authorized the use of lethal force against those participating in unrest, Tokayev indicated that some measure of calm had been restored, saying local authorities are in control of the situation.
Tokayev has vacillated between trying to mollify the protesters including issuing a 180-day price cap on vehicle fuel and a moratorium on utility rate increases and promising harsh measures to quell the unrest.
As he vowed a tougher response, he called on the CSTO alliance for help. A total of 2,500 troops have arrived so far, all of them in Almaty, Kazakh media reported, citing foreign ministry officials.
Kazakh officials have insisted that troops from the alliance, which includes several former Soviet republics, will not be fighting the demonstrators, and instead will guard government institutions.
It wasn't immediately clear whether the foreign troops deployed thus far were involved in suppressing the unrest.
The involvement of CSTO forces is an indication that Kazakhstan's neighbors, particularly Russia, are concerned the turmoil could spread.
In his address to the nation, Tokayev repeated his allegations that foreign actors along with independent media helped incite the turmoil.
He offered no evidence for those claims, but such rhetoric has often been used by former Soviet nations, most prominently Russia and Belarus, which sought to suppress mass anti-government demonstrations in recent years.
Kazakhstan, which spans a territory the size of Western Europe, borders Russia and China and sits atop colossal reserves of oil, natural gas, uranium and precious metals that make it strategically and economically important and the crisis sparked concern in many quarters.
Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, said she was following the developments with a great worry, while French president Emmanuel Macron called for de-escalation.
In Germany, Foreign Ministry spokesman Christofer Burger said officials were looking into the reports of Tokayev's shooting order.
From Germany's point of view, it must be said very clearly that a use of lethal force, of live ammunition against civilians can only be a very last resort, particularly if military forces are deployed.
But China appeared to step up its support for Kazakhstan's government on Friday.
Kazakhstan is a critical component in China's Belt and Road overland connection to Europe and persistent unrest in the country could upend Beijing's hopes for closer trade and political relations with the continent.
Chinese President Xi Jinping expressed his condolences to Tokayev over the large-scale riot, praising him for having decisively taken strong measures at critical moments and quickly calming down the situation.
As a fraternal neighbour and a long-term strategic partner, China is willing to provide necessary support within its means to Kazakhstan to help it get over this difficult period, Xi said.
Despite Kazakhstan's vast resource wealth, discontent over poor living conditions is strong in some parts of the country.
Many Kazakhs also chafe at the dominance of the ruling party, which holds more than 80% of the seats in parliament.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Govt comes out with set of FAQs on women's reservation bill
New Delhi (PTI): The government on Sunday came out with a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) related to the reservation for women in legislatures following the defeat of a Constitution Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha that seeks to provide 33 per cent quota for women in the Lower House and state assemblies.
The FAQs came amid the Opposition's claim that in the name of women quota, the government was trying to carry out delimitation on its own will based on 2011 census.
Here are the FAQs:-
1. Which Bills were introduced by the central government in the Lok Sabha on April 16, 2026?
A:- On April 16, the central government introduced three key Bills in the Lok Sabha: The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, 2026, The Delimitation Bill, 2026 and The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026.
2. Why were these three Bills brought at this point in time?
A:- The 'Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam', commonly known as the Women Reservation Act, provides that reservation for women will be implemented based on delimitation after the Census conducted post-2026.
If the government had waited for the Census and subsequent delimitation, women would not have been able to benefit from 33 per cent reservation even in the 2029 general elections as the Census and subsequent delimitation period takes time.
Therefore, to ensure timely benefits to half the population, it was considered necessary to delink implementation of the Act from this condition.
3. What would have been the benefits if these Bills had been passed?
A:- If passed and approved, these Bills would have enabled women to receive 33 per cent reservation in the Lok Sabha as early as the 2029 general elections.
4. Why was delimitation linked with the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, and why was there a proposal to increase seats?
A:- Delimitation means finalising the boundary of a constituency. It is essential for implementing women's reservation. The limit on seats in the Lok Sabha was set at 550 in 1976. In 1971, the population of India was 54 crore. Today it is 140 crore. Therefore, it is important to increase seats to 850 in the Lok Sabha. This would enable fair representation of people in Parliament.
5. Was there any attempt to modify the Delimitation Commission Act for political advantage? Would ongoing state elections be affected?
A:- No changes were proposed to the Delimitation Commission Act. The existing legal framework remains intact, and any recommendations of the commission would require parliamentary approval and Presidential assent.
Ongoing elections, including those in states like Tamil Nadu or West Bengal, would not be affected, as elections up to 2029 will be conducted under the current system.
6. What was the rationale behind increasing Lok Sabha seats to 850?
A:- The proposal was based on a proportional expansion approach. A uniform 50 per cent increase in seats would maintain the proportion for all states and UTs. Applying this principle to the current 543 seats would lead to approximately 815 seats. Therefore, the upper limit on seats was increased from current cap of 550 seats in Lok Sabha to 850 seats.
7. Would southern or smaller states have been adversely affected by the new delimitation proposal?
A:- No. All states would see uniform 50 per cent increase in seats. Southern states would not face any reduction in representation; rather, their overall share would remain stable. For example, Tamil Nadu's seats would increase proportionally, ensuring no disadvantage. The southern states currently have 23.76 per cent seats in Lok Sabha. This would have become 23.87 per cent after the passage of the Bills.
Lok Sabha seats in Karnataka would have increased to 42 from present 28; in Andhra Pradesh, the seats would have been 38 from the present 25; in Telangana, the total seats would have been 26 from the present 17; in Tamil Nadu, it would have been 59 seats from the present 39 and in Keralam, it would have been 30 from the present 20 seats.
Total seats in the five southern states would have been increased to 195 from the present 129.
This is 543 seats to 816 seats - 50 per cent increase model.
8. Would states that have controlled population growth face any disadvantage?
A:- No, as the increase in seats was proposed uniformly across states, their proportional representation would remain unchanged or slightly improve.
9. Would the representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes be affected?
A:- No, the process of delimitation ensures proportional reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. With an expanded House, the number of reserved seats would increase significantly, thereby strengthening their representation.
10. Was this Constitutional Amendment Bill introduced to delay caste census?
A:- No, the government has already started a time-bound programme for caste census. The process includes detailed enumeration, and caste-related data will be recorded during the population count phase.
11. Why was there no separate quota for Muslim women within the reservation framework?
A:- The Constitution of India does not provide for reservation based on religion. Reservation policies are based on social and economic backwardness, as laid out in the Constitution.
12. Why was women's reservation not implemented in the 2024 general elections itself?
A:- Implementing reservation requires delimitation of seats. Delimitation is an extensive consultative process. It takes about two years to complete delimitation. Therefore, these Bills (including Delimitation Bill) were brought in Parliament for implementing women's reservation.
13. Why was the Women's Reservation Bill introduced in 2023 if it was not to be implemented immediately?
A:- The Bill was introduced and passed in 2023 to establish the legal and constitutional framework for women's reservation. Its unanimous passage reflected broad political support at the time, enabling the enactment of the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam.
14. Why was a separate Union Territories Bill required?
A:- Legislative Assemblies in Union Territories such as Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi and Puducherry are governed by separate legal provisions. Therefore, specific amendments were required to implement women's reservation in these regions, necessitating a separate Bill.
