Active Oppn important in parliamentary democracy: Modi

New Delhi, Feb 27: The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has said that the Delhi violence in which over 30 people were killed, was specifically targeted against the Muslims.

Expressing "grave concern over the ongoing violence taking place in Delhi", the USCIRF in a statement said that as President Donald Trump's inaugural visit to India winds down, North-East Delhi has been rocked by deadly rioting, with reports of violence and mobs specifically targeting Muslims.

"These incidents are even more concerning in the context of efforts within India to target and potentially disenfranchise Muslims across the country, in clear violation of international human rights standards," USCIRF Commissioner Anurima Bhargava said.

"According to reports, several mosques have also been set alight or vandalized. Many Muslim residents have been forced to flee the area. This unrest comes in the wake of widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act following its passage in December 2019.

"The brutal and unchecked violence growing across Delhi cannot continue," Bhargava said adding that the Indian government must take swift action to ensure the safety of all of its citizens.

"Instead, reports are mounting that the Delhi police have not intervened in violent attacks against Muslims, and the government is failing in its duty to protect its citizens."

USCIRF Chair Tony Perkins said the ongoing violence in Delhi and the reported "attacks against Muslims, their homes and shops, and their houses of worship are greatly disturbing".

One of the essential duties of any responsible government, he said, is to provide protection and physical security for its citizens, regardless of faith.

"We urge the Indian government to take serious efforts to protect Muslims and others targeted by mob violence."

In its annual report last year, the USCIRF classified India as a "Tier 2" country for engaging in or tolerating religious freedom violations that meet at least one of the elements of the "systematic, ongoing, egregious standard for designations as a "country of particular concern (CPC)", under the International Religious Freedom Act.

The ongoing violence in North-East Delhi erupted after clashes between pro and anti-CAA protesters on Sunday.

Besides the casualties, over 200 others have been injured in the deadliest violence in the national capital in decades.

New Delhi, Jan 5: A masked mob on Sunday entered the Sabarmati Hostel on the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus and assaulted several students and professors with sticks and rods.

"I have been brutally attacked by goons wearing masks. I am bleeding. I was brutally beaten up," JNU Students' Union (JNUSU) president Aishe Ghosh told reporters.

She has been admitted to the AIIMS here for treatment.

Several other students were also injured in the incident.

In a video of the incident, a group of goons with their faces covered can be seen assaulting students with wooden sticks and rods.

A tweet from the official handle of the JNUSU said, "Sabarmati Hostel: right now. They are beating the students who are inside. Knocking on doors with rods. People are jumping from balconies. #SOSJNU #EmergencyinJNU."

"Professors who were trying to protect us have been beaten up. These are unknown ABVP goons, not all are students, they have covered their faces, and they are moving towards the hotels near the West Gate. Stay alert. Make human chains. Protect each other. #SOSJNU #EmergencyinJNU," another tweet added.

Meanwhile, the ABVP's JNU unit claimed in a tweet: "Emergency in JNU. Leftist goons of JNU accompained with their cadre from other universities have crossed every limit. They have proceeded with unimaginable violence on ABVP activists of JNU."

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.