Rohingya refugees are fleeing India and going into hiding amid fears that a government campaign to collect their personal information is a prelude to mass deportation.

The data-gathering, which includes biometric information, follows the government’s first transfer of seven Rohingya back to Burma last month.

Critics say the ruling, Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is targeting the persecuted Muslim community ahead of a general election due in May.

“We are sure the Indian government is preparing to send us back to Burma,” said Abul Foiz, who ran away from a Rohingya refugee camp in the northern city of Jammu last week.

Intelligence officers had visited the camp and asked him to write down the date he entered India and his original address in Burma.

“In the past few days over 200 Rohingyas have disappeared from Jammu,” Mr Foiz said. “No one wants to return to Burma where we are still facing violence and persecution.”

Abu Hossain, 65, told the Telegraph he fled a refugee camp in Jammu after six years and entered Bangladesh last week.

“Our camps were set alight by people we suspect were from the Hindu groups. Police said they could not help us… The situation was turning very hostile,” Mr Hossain said from his new home in Cox’s Bazar refugee camp.

Rohingya in Buddhist-majority Burma have faced discrimination for decades and last year the UN accused Burma’s government of “genocidal intent” after a bloody military crackdown forced 700,000 of the Muslim minority out of the country.

The Indian home ministry refused to discuss deportation of Rohingya with the Telegraph.

As it has not signed the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, India treats the roughly 40,000 Rohingya in the country as illegal immigrants rather than refugees.

Around 18,000 are registered with the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, which issues ID cards to help avoid arrest, detention and deportation. But many ID-card holders are still scared of deportation, said Ko Ko Linn, a Bangladesh-based Rohingya political activist.

Even card-holders are now also "on the run", Mr Linn told the Telegraph, having been frightened by last month’s deportations and the move to collect personal details and biometric information. 

In an emailed statement, UNHCR New Delhi said that it was “concerned about the anxiety in the Rohingya community” caused by the latest developments.

Although Rohingya lived in India without much trouble for decades, Narendra Modi’s BJP has been fanning resentment since it won election in 2014. 

Last year the government ordered all states to identify and deport Rohingya, saying they were “more vulnerable for getting recruited by terrorist organisations”. Deportation efforts now appear to be getting underway.

On October 10th, the government of Assam state announced it would send 23 Rohingya back to Myanmar. In Jammu and Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-dominated state, one right-wing Hindu group has threatened to “identify and kill” all of the state’s 7,000 Rohingya the government fails to expel.

Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan said that claims the refugees are involved in terrorism are absurd. No member of the community has been implicated in “any matter that would jeopardise India’s national security,” the lawyer, who is fighting deportation efforts, told the Telegraph, adding that the allegations "being put forward by the government aim at polarising Indian society on communal lines.”

Calcutta-based Human rights activist Ranjit Sur said the BJP-led government has launched the anti-Rohingya drive with an eye on the general elections next year.

“Rohingya human rights have been sacrificed at the altar of electoral and communal politics,” he said.

A UN plane will evacuate 50 wounded Houthi militants from Yemen’s rebel-held capital Sana’a on Monday as a "confidence building measure" ahead of planned peace talks in Sweden, a Saudi-led military coalition said.

"A UN chartered plane will arrive at Sana’a international airport Monday to evacuate 50 wounded combatants… three Yemeni doctors and a UN doctor, from Sana’a to Muscat," a coalition spokesman said in a statement carried by the official Saudi Press Agency.

The fate of wounded rebels had been a stumbling block to the start of a previous round of aborted peace talks in September.

The coalition agreed to facilitate the medical evacuations at the request of Martin Griffiths, the UN envoy, for "humanitarian reasons" and as a "confidence building measure", the spokesman added.

Houthi rebels on Thursday said they will attend UN-brokered peace talks in Sweden this week if guarantees to ensure they can leave home and return back are maintained.

Yemen’s internationally recognised government, which is also backed by a Saudi-led coalition, has already said it would attend the planned talks in Sweden.

Mr Griffiths has held talks separately in the past few days with officials from both sides as part of efforts to lay the ground work for the peace talks.

In September, a previous round of UN-led talks failed when the Houthis refused to travel to Geneva, accusing the world body of failing to guarantee their delegation’s return to Sana’a or secure the evacuation of wounded rebels to Oman.

Previous talks broke down in 2016, when 108 days of negotiations in Kuwait failed to yield a deal and left rebel delegates stranded in Oman for three months.

According to UN figures, nearly 10,000 people have been killed since the coalition joined the conflict in 2015 to bolster the government of Abd-Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, triggering what the UN calls the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

Rights groups fear the actual toll is far higher.

Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing is on a roll. This year alone he has discovered seven new species of dinosaur, including one that is 200 million years old – the most ancient specimen he has unearthed so far.

In all, Mr Xu has named over 70 dinosaurs, more than any other living paleontologist. But his discoveries aren’t just down to long hours at dusty archaeological digs. His success is owed to China’s construction boom churning up soil and fossils as vast cities continue to rise from the ground.

While bulldozers have unearthed prehistoric sites in many countries, the scale and speed of China’s urbanisation is unprecedented, according to the United Nations Development Program.

Mr Xu, 49, spends…

British intelligence provided the tip-off that led to the arrest of a retired Austrian army officer on suspicion of spying for Russia, an Austrian newspaper has claimed.

The tip-off was politically motivated and came amid British displeasure at the Austrian government’s refusal to distance itself from Russia in the wake of the Skripal poisoning, Kleine Zeitung newspaper alleged. 

British and Austrian authorities declined to confirm or comment on the claims. Sebastian Kurz, the Austrian chancellor, said last week the case had been brought to authorities’ attention by a tip-off from a “friendly intelligence service”.

The suspect, an unnamed 70-year-old retired colonel in the Austrian army, is being held on charges of spying for Russia over a 20-year period. He is alleged to have passed details of Austrian weapons systems and other secrets to Russia in exchange for payments of €300,000 (£260,000).

The case has severely shaken normally warm relations between Austria and Russia. Mr Kurz, who previously spoke of wanting his country to be a “bridge” between Russia and the West, has demanded an explanation from Moscow.

Initial reports last week suggested the tip-off came from Germany. But Kleine Zeitung quoted an unnamed “senior officer” in the Austrian army as saying it had come from Britain.

The officer believes British intelligence acted deliberately in order to distance Austria from Russia, the newspaper claimed.

Austria was one of few Western countries not to expel any Russian diplomats in the wake of the Skripal poisoning affair in Salisbury, and senior figures in the Austrian government have close links to Russia.

Vladimir Putin was a guest at the wedding of Karin Kneissl, the Austrian foreign minister, in August, and danced with her in front of the cameras. Ms Kneissl has cancelled a planned trip to Russia in the wake of the spying arrest.

Britain has not commented on the claims, but government sources said last week: “It is interesting that this a spying operation against a country that has a mixed reputation when it comes to its relationship with Russia. 

“This is another Russian intelligence operation against a European nation. An operation that was exposed, once again, as a result of European cooperation. Russian behaviour continues to be egregious and widespread. The threat is a reality.”

Austrian opposition parties have accused the far-Right Freedom Party (FPÖ), which is junior partner in the country’s coalition government, of being too close to Russia.

“One of the biggest security risks is the links between with the Russian leadership and the FPÖ,” Peter Pilz, leader of the opposition Pilz List party said last week.

While Ms Kneissl, who danced with Mr Putin at her wedding, is officially independent, she was nominated as foreign minister by the Freedom Party. The party also controls the Austrian interior and defence ministries.

Russia has reacted angrily to the allegations and accused Austria of “megaphone diplomacy”.

"We are accused and asked to apologise for something we know nothing about,” Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister said last week.

Russian prosecutors on Monday accused Bill Browder, a prominent critic of Vladimir Putin, of ordering the murder of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and several other business associates – the latest in a string of efforts to discredit one of the most vocal advocates of sanctions against the regime.

Magnitsky, a lawyer working for Mr Browder, was arrested in 2008 after uncovering evidence of large-scale tax fraud among Russian officials. He died a year later in a Moscow prison, after he was reportedly assaulted and denied proper medical treatment. Mr Browder, once an early supporter of Mr Putin, has since lobbied tirelessly for sanctions against the Russian president and his entourage.

Mr Browder, the British head of investment fund Hermitage Capital Management, branded the accusations "Kafka-esque". Writing on social media, he cast them as a vendetta waged by Mr Putin for his lobbying, which in 2012 led to US sanctions on Russia in what is widely known as the Magnitsky Act.

"I really struck a nerve with the Magnitsky Act," Mr Browder said. 

The accusations come as Interpol, an international body for coordinating national police efforts, meets this week to elect a new president. A report published by The Sunday Times said a Russian Interior Ministry official is expected to win, sparking concern that Moscow may use the organisation to target critics and dissidents residing beyond Russian police jurisdiction.

“Russia has made seven abusive attempts to have me arrested since 2013 on politically motivated charges,” Mr Browder told Newsweek. “If Russia is allowed to take over Interpol it is like the mafia taking over global law enforcement.”

In May, Mr Browder was briefly arrested in Madrid by Spanish police acting on an Interpol Red Notice issued by Russia, but was released amid an international outcry. The Council of Europe has previously accused Moscow of abusing the Interpol system to pursue "political goals", referencing its pursuit of the British financier.

Prosecutors also said at a press conference in Moscow on Monday that Mr Browder is being formally charged with operating a vast international money laundering empire, calling again for his arrest. These charges were used to argue that Magnitsky was a member of this organisation, giving Mr Browder motive to order his death, the Interfax news agency reported.

In an odd parallel to the recent case surrounding the poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, prosecutors said there was evidence Magnitsky and three other deceased former Browder associates showed evidence of poisoning by a “toxic inorganic aluminum compound,” Interfax reported.  Only the US, France and Italy have studied such compounds they said, not Russia.

China has flaunted its advanced stealth fighter jets with full missile loads for the first time as Beijing flexed its military might at its biennial air show.

Two Chinese J-20s – China’s answer to the US F-22s and F-35s – roared over the crowds in Zhuhai, a southern Chinese city, with its bomb bay doors open to show off four long-range air-to-air missiles inside, and two short-range combat missiles under the wings.

But despite state media describing the flyover as a “stunning aerial display”, the move masked the crucial fact that China’s fighter jets are still using Russian-made engines, even after reportedly spending $4.4 billion developing the J-20.

“China made a point at this air show about…

Donald Trump has threatened to strip more reporters of their White House passes and said Ronald Reagan would have handled CNN’s Jim Acosta in the same way as he doubled down over the row. 

The US president denied that a video showing the heated exchange with Mr Acosta circulated by the White House press secretary had been distorted, saying it had simply been zoomed in. 

And he continued to personally criticise journalists, questioning Mr Acosta’s intellect and calling CNN contributor April Ryan a “loser” and a “very nasty person”. 

The comments, made to reporters outside the White House before Mr Trump flew to Paris for World War One commemorations, further escalate this week’s clash with members of the press. 

On Wednesday, Mr Trump lashed out at Mr Acosta after being repeatedly challenged and interrupted on immigration, calling him a “very rude person” and asking him to put down the microphone. Later that day his White House credentials were revoked. 

On Thursday. Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, circulated a video of the exchange which zoomed in and looped a point where Mr Acosta’s arm comes into contact with that of a White House intern who reached to take away his microphone.

A video verification expert told The Telegraph that the footage had been manipulated.

On Friday, Mr Trump made no attempt to deflate the row when asked how long Mr Acosta would be left “in the penalty box”. 

Mr Trump said: “I think Jim Acosta is a very unprofessional man. He does this with everybody. He gets paid to do that, you know, he gets paid to burst in. He’s a very unprofessional guy. 

“Whether it was me or Ronald Reagan or anybody else he would have done the same thing. Look, I don’t think he’s a smart person but he’s got a loud voice.”

Asked if the removal of Mr Acosta’s press credentials was permanent, the president said: “As far as I’m concerned I haven’t made that decision, but it could be others also. 

“When you’re in the White House, this is a very sacred place to be, this is a very special place. You have to treat the White House with respect, you have to treat the presidency with respect.”

Mr Trump then went on to criticise Ms Ryan, an African-American journalist who works for American Urban Radio Networks and also regularly appears on CNN, a broadcaster Mr Trump dislikes. She also clashed with Mr Trump in Wednesday’s press conference. 

Mr Trump said: “I mean you talk about somebody that’s a loser, she doesn’t know what the hell she’s doing. She gets publicity and then she gets a pay raise or she gets a contract with I think CNN. 

“But she’s very nasty and she shouldn’t be, she shouldn’t be. You’ve got to treat the White House and the office of the presidency with respect.”

The president also dismissed the suggestion that the footage Ms Sanders had shared on Twitter of his exchange with Mr Acosta during the post-midterms press conference was doctored. 

“No one manipulated, gimme a break,” Mr Trump said. He added: “When you say doctored you’re a dishonest guy. They gave a close up view, that’s not doctoring.” 

The White House Correspondents’ Association [WHCA] has strongly criticised the removal of Mr Acosta’s credentials, as have many leading US journalists and politicians. 

Olivier Knox, the WCHA president, said earlier this week: "Journalists may use a range of approaches to carry out their jobs and the WHCA does not police the tone or frequency of the questions its members ask of powerful senior government officials, including the President.”

Donald Trump has provided the special counsel’s office with written answers to questions about his knowledge of Russian interference in the 2016 election, his lawyers said on Tuesday.

The step – the first time the US president has directly cooperated with the investigation – is a milestone in a months-long negotiation between Mr Trump’s lawyers and special counsel Robert Mueller’s team over whether and when the president would sit for an interview.

It represents the first time the president is known to have described to investigators his knowledge of key moments under scrutiny by prosecutors. If Mr Mueller finds the answers satisfactory, the responses may also help stave off a potential subpoena fight over Mr Trump’s testimony.

The compromise outcome, nearly a year in the making, offers some benefit to both sides. Mr Trump avoids, at least for now, a potentially risky and unpredictable sit-down with prosecutors, while Mr Mueller secures a set of on-the-record statements whose accuracy the president and his lawyers will be expected to stand by for the duration of the investigation.

"The president today answered written questions submitted by the special counsel’s office," attorney Jay Sekulow said in a statement. "The questions presented dealt with issues regarding the Russia-related topics of the inquiry. The president responded in writing."

Mr Sekulow said in a follow-up message that the legal team would not release copies of the questions and answers or discuss correspondence with the special counsel’s office.

Mr Mueller’s team may well press for additional information.

Investigators months ago presented Mr Trump’s legal team with dozens of questions they wanted to ask the president related to whether his campaign coordinated with the Kremlin to tip the 2016 election and whether he sought to criminally obstruct the Russia probe by actions including the firing of former FBI director James Comey.

Mr Mueller’s office agreed to accept written responses to questions about potential Russian collusion and tabled, for the moment, obstruction-related inquiries. They left open the possibility that they would follow up with additional questions on obstruction, though Mr Trump’s lawyers – who had long resisted any face-to-face interview – had been especially adamant that the Constitution shielded him from having to answer any questions about actions he took as president.

Another of Mr Trump’s lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, said on Tuesday the lawyers continue to believe that "much of what has been asked raised serious constitutional issues and was beyond the scope of a legitimate inquiry." He said Mr Mueller’s office had received "unprecedented cooperation from the White House."

"It is time to bring this inquiry to a conclusion," Mr Giuliani said.

The precise questions and answers that Mr Trump gave to Mr Mueller weren’t immediately clear, though the president told reporters last week that he had prepared the responses himself.

Mr Trump told Fox News in an interview that aired on Sunday that he was unlikely to answer questions about obstruction, saying: "I think we’ve wasted enough time on this witch hunt and the answer is probably, we’re finished."

Mr Trump joins a list of recent presidents to be questioned as part of a criminal investigation.

In 2004, George W. Bush was interviewed by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s office during an investigation into the leaked identity of a CIA officer. In 1998, President Bill Clinton testified before a federal grand jury in independent counsel Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation.

"It’s very extraordinary if this were a regular case, but it’s not every day that you have an investigation that touches upon the White House," said Solomon Wisenberg, a Washington lawyer who was part of Starr’s team and conducted the grand jury questioning of Mr Clinton.

Mr Mueller could theoretically still look to subpoena the president if he feels the answers are not satisfactory. But Justice Department leaders, including acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker – who now oversees the investigation and has spoken pejoratively of it in the past – would have to sign off on such a move, and it’s far from clear that they would. It’s also not clear that Mr Mueller’s team would prevail if a subpoena fight reaches the Supreme Court.

"Mueller certainly could have forced the issue and issued a subpoena, but I think he wants to present a record of having bent over backwards to be fair," Mr Wisenberg said.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a president can be subpoenaed to testify in a criminal case. Mr Clinton was subpoenaed to appear before the Whitewater grand jury, though investigators withdrew the subpoena once he agreed to appear voluntarily.

Other cases involving Presidents Richard Nixon and Mr Clinton have presented similar issues for the justices that could be instructive now.

In 1974, for instance, the court ruled that Nixon could be ordered to turn over subpoenaed audio recordings, a decision that hastened his resignation from office. The court in 1998 said Mr Clinton could be questioned under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones.