Blow to Modi govt as Interpol gives clean chit to Dr Zakir Naik, cancels red corner notice

Kochi, Feb 29: The Kerala Non-Resident Indians' Commission on Friday passed a resolution to request the Centre and Election Commission (EC) to make appropriate amendments in the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, to ensure voting rights to the non-resident Indians working abroad. According to People’s Representation Act, 1951, None-Resident Indians (NRIs) can vote by proxy.

The Commission is a statutory body constituted for the welfare of Non-Resident Keralites working outside India.

The Centre had introduced a bill for this purpose which was passed by the Lok Sabha in 2018, but the same has since lapsed.

Therefore, the Kerala NRI Commission decided to request the Centre to consider introducing the bill in the next session of Parliament considering the interest of the NRI community at large.

The resolution was moved by commission member and NRI entrepreneur Shamsheer Vayalil, who is also a petitioner in the writ petition, filed regarding this in the Supreme Court.

"The central government may consider introducing the bill in the next session of the Parliament session considering the interest of the NRI community at large," read the resolution which will now be sent to the Ministry of Law and the Election Commission (EC).

Commission chairman Justice PD Rajan said the right to vote for NRIs is a genuine demand.

"This is the time that we step up pressure on the agencies concerned to implement this. Voting from the workplace would be a different experience for them. It would be a decisive step," he said.

This fresh development comes at a time when a petition filed in the Supreme Court on the same topic last week came before a bench headed by Justice Deepak Gupta, which considered the case and said it will be heard in April.

"We are expecting a favourable decision from the Supreme Court. We would also approach the NRI commission in other states and request them to raise the same demand," said Vayalil.

If implemented, millions of NRIs around the world would be able to exercise their franchise in the electoral processes of the nation. According to the estimate of the Ministry of External Affairs, there are about 3.10 crore NRIs.

Mumbai, Feb 3: Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, whose party severed ties with the BJP after the state elections, on Monday said that if somebody breaks a promise, "pain and anger is obvious".

"No, I did not get any shock," Thackeray said in an interview with Shiv Sena mouthpiece Saamana while talking about forming an alliance with NCP and Congress, and becoming the Maharashtra Chief Minister.

"I am a son of Shiv Sena Pramukh (Balasaheb Thackeray), several people tried to give a shock to me but they didn't succeed. This is a field where you have to accept in the beginning that there will be a bit pushing and pulling," Thackeray said.

He added that accepting the Chief Minister's post was not a shock for him and neither was it his "dream at any point of time".

"But I can say one thing for sure that I had decided to go to any level to fulfil the promise which I made to Balasaheb Thackeray. I want to further clear it that me becoming Chief Minister is not the fulfilling of the promise made to Shiv Sena Pramukh but it's just a step towards that. I will fulfil every promise which I made to my father," Uddhav Thackeray said.

"There are several types of shock. Did people like it or not, it is the important part. I have spoken on this issue (alliance with NCP and Congress) several times and even people have understood this. Making promises and keeping them are two different things. If someone breaks a promise, pain and anger is obvious," he added.

The Chief Minister said that he does not know if BJP "has come out their shock till now or not."

"But I have to say if they had kept their promise what would have happened, what a big deal had I asked for? Did I ask for stars and moon? I only asked for what was decided before Lok Sabha polls, when we decided seat distribution," he said.

He further said, "Maharashtra and the country are watching (who betrayed/shocked whom), I don't need to say much on this."

Soon after the Assembly election results, Shiv Sena demanded rotation of the chief minister's post and equal power-sharing in the state government, which was rejected by then ally BJP. The weeks of political stalemate led to the imposition of President's rule on November 13.

Firm on its demands, Sena, the second-largest party in the state, did not hesitate to cobble up with the ideological opponents -- NCP and Congress -- and was given the chief minister's post.

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.