Video of BJP minister peeing on roadside goes viral

New Delhi, Jun 24: A litre of diesel on Wednesday was more expensive than a litre of petrol after the price of the former was hiked by 48 paise on the 18th successive day of fuel price revisions. While petrol price remained unchanged for the first time since June 7, diesel prices maintained upward trajectory to touch new highs.

It is for the first time in Delhi that diesel has become more expensive than petrol. A litre of the fuel now costs ₹79.88 as against ₹79.76 for a litre of petrol, as per a report in news agency ANI.

While surging fuel prices may generate much-needed revenue for governments, it would also have a detrimental impact on household budgets. The spike in diesel prices also has a wider impact on the transport and agricultural sectors which are largely dependent on the fuel.

The widest gap between the prices of the two fuels was on June 18 of 2012 when a litre of petrol was at ₹71.16 in Delhi while diesel was at ₹40.91. On June 28, the gap between the two fuels was 31.17 per litre in Mumbai. Around that time, there was a spurt in sales of diesel passenger vehicles while demand for such vehicles has come down significantly in current times. This has also led many manufacturers to ditch diesel engines completely.

The current trend of fuel price hikes are unlikely to do demand for petrol vehicles much good either.

Daily price revisions of the two fuel had been temporarily halted for 83 days till it was resumed on June 7.

India's demand for fuel doubled in May and has been steadily rising in June with the easing of restrictions. Indian refineries have already scaled up crude processing with Indian Oil Corp, the country's top refiner, looking to operate its plants at about 90% capacity in June.

The rising fuel prices, however, have resulted in political uproar with Congress leading the charge against the central government and accusing it of penalising consumers by imposing high taxes. A demand for including fuel prices under Goods and Services Tax (GST) has also been renewed by many but it is highly unlikely that it would happen. With oil companies looking to cut back on their previous loses and governments - central as well as states - aiming to generate revenue after tumultous weeks of lockdown, fuel price hikes are likely to stay till at least the end of June.

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.

UN, May 26: Countries could see a "second peak" of coronavirus cases during the first wave of the pandemic if lockdown restrictions were lifted too soon, the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned.

Mike Ryan, the WHO's head of emergencies, told a briefing on Monday that the world was "right in the middle of the first wave", the BBC reported.

He said because the disease was "still on the way up", countries need to be aware that "the disease can jump up at any time".

"We cannot make assumptions that just because the disease is on the way down now that it's going to keep going down," Ryan said.

There would be a number of months to prepare for a second peak, he added.

The stark warning comes as countries around the world start to gradually ease lockdown restrictions, allowing shops to reopen and larger groups of people to gather.

Experts have said that without a vaccine to give people immunity, infections could increase again when social-distancing measures are relaxed.

Ryan said countries where cases are declining should be using this time to develop effective trace-and-test regimes to "ensure that we continue on a downwards trajectory and we don't have an immediate second peak".

Also on Monday, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, said that a clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) on COVID-19 patients has come to "a temporary pause", while the safety data of the the anti-malaria drug was being reviewed.

According to the WHO chief, The Lancet medical journal on May 22 had published an observational study on HCQ and chloroquine and its effects on COVID-19 patients that have been hospitalized, reports Xinhua news agency.

The authors of the study reported that among patients receiving the drug, when used alone or with a macrolide, they estimated a higher mortality rate.

"The Executive Group of the Solidarity Trial, representing 10 of the participating countries, met on Saturday (May 23) and has agreed to review a comprehensive analysis and critical appraisal of all evidence available globally," Tedros said in a virtual press conference.

The developments come as the total number of global COVID-19 cases has increased to 5,508,904, with 346,508 deaths, according to the Johns Hopkins University.