Modi twice as popular on Facebook as Trump, claims private study

New Delhi, Jan 24: Under attack for doling out subsidies, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Friday said freebies in limited dose are good for the economy as they make more money available to the poor and boosts demand.

Opposition parties have been attacking the AAP-led Delhi government for giving "freebies" ahead of polls after it announced schemes like free bus rides for women and 200 units of free electricity.

"Freebies, in limited dose, are good for economy. It makes more money available to poor, hence boosts demand. However, it should be done in such limits so that no extra taxes have to be imposed and it does not lead to budget deficits," Kejriwal said in a tweet.

Slamming the BJP, Kejriwal said he is happy that the people of Delhi have forced the Saffron party to ask for votes on the basis of CCTVs, schools and unauthorised colonies.

Reacting to a tweet of the BJP Delhi in which Home Minister Amit Shah had asked how many schools have been constructed and cameras installed by the AAP government, Kejriwal said he is happy that Shah saw some CCTV cameras as earlier he had claimed that he could not find a single one.

"I am happy you saw some CCTV cameras. A few days back you said there was not a single camera. Take out some time we will show you our schools also. I am extremely happy that the people of Delhi have changed the politics by which the BJP has to ask for votes on CCTV, schools and raw colonies here," he said in a tweet.

Responding to Shah's allegation that he could not find WiFi in Delhi as promised by Kejriwal and that his battery drained out in the process, the Delhi chief minister said along with free WiFi they have also made arrangement for free charging points.

New Delhi, Feb 16: Despite the fact that Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) managed to clean sweep in the recently-concluded 2020 Delhi Assembly polls with eight women candidates winning, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's new cabinet does not have a single woman.

This, even as eight AAP women candidates -- Atishi Marlena, Rakhi Birla, Raj Kumari Dhillon, Preeti Tomar, Dhanwati Chandela, Parmila Tokas, Bhavna Gaur and Bandana Kumari emerged victorious in the 2020 Assembly polls.

Also, AAP's poll campaign had put the spotlight on women's issues- free bus rides for women, safety etc.

This year, AAP had fielded nine female candidates out of which only woman candidate Sarita Singh from Rohtas Nagar suffered defeat. In 2015, the party had fielded six women candidates, all of whom won the election.

Atishi Marlena, who won the election from Kalkaji, has served as a key advisor to the AAP leader Manish Sisodia primarily on education policies that transformed public school education in the capital.

Just like Marlena, incumbent MLA Rakhi Birla from Mangolpuri constituency has also failed to comeback to the Cabinet in this term even after bagging over 74,100 votes, with a margin of over 30,000 votes and 58 per cent of the vote share.

She was charged with the Cabinet Ministry of Women and Child, Social Welfare and Languages, for a few months in AAP's first term from 2013 to 2014. During this, period she came to the spotlight as she became the youngest ever cabinet minister of Delhi at the age of 26 and was even called "giant killer" for defeating four-time Congress MLA Raj Kumar Chouhan in 2013 Delhi polls.

Another candidate of AAP, Raj Kumari Dhillon swept Hari Nagar against BJP's Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga by a margin of over 20,100 votes.

Apart from these three, Preeti Tomar (Tri Nagar), Dhanwati Chandela (Rajouri Nagar), Pramila Tokas (RK Puram), Bhavna Gaur (Palam), and Bandana Kumari (Shalimar Bagh)- the other five who won for AAP- do not figure in the new cabinet.

Today at Ramlila Maidan, AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal was sworn-in as Chief Minister of Delhi.

Besides him, Manish Sisodia, Satyender Jain, Gopal Rai, Kailash Gehlot, Imran Hussain, and Rajendra Gautamas took oath as the ministers in Delhi.

AAP achieved a landslide victory in the Assembly elections with a clear majority of 62 seats out of 70. 

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.