|  |  | 

India Top Headlines

China Opposes India’s Decision to Continue Banning Chinese Apps, Says Violates WTO Rules | India News


NEW DELHI: China on Wednesday opposed India’s decision to continue to ban 59 Chinese mobile apps, saying the action violates the World Trade Organization principles of non-discrimination.
In response to the media inquiry, the spokesman for the Chinese embassy in India, Councilor Ji Rong, urged the Indian side to immediately correct what he called “discriminatory measures”.
The response comes a day after it was reported that India decided to make a ban on Tik Tok and 58 other Chinese apps permanent in June.
“Since last year, the Indian side has repeatedly used national security as an excuse to ban some mobile applications of Chinese origin. These measures violate the non-discrimination principles of the WTO and the principles of fair competition of the market economy seriously harm the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies. The Chinese side strongly opposes them, “the statement read.
“These measures by the Indian government have also hampered the improvement of the Indian business environment and the innovative development of related Indian industries. The economic and trade cooperation between China and India is mutually beneficial by nature. We urge the Indian side to correct accordingly. their discriminatory measures immediately and avoid causing further damage to bilateral cooperation, “he added.
In June last year, India banned 59 Chinese mobile apps, including widely used social media platforms like TikTok, WeChat, and Helo, taking into account the threat to the nation’s sovereignty and security.
Most of the apps banned in the June 29 order were singled out by intelligence agencies out of concerns that they were collecting user data and possibly also sending it “out.”
In September, the Indian government further blocked 118 Chinese mobile applications that they claimed were “detrimental to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the defense of India, state security and public order.”

Original source