Whenever Modi’s popularity declines, news of his assassination plot is ‘planted’: Nirupam

New Delhi, Feb 5: Taking on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal after Shaheen Bagh shooter Kapil Baisala was identified as an AAP worker by police, BJP chief J P Nadda on Tuesday said it exposed the party and Kejriwal who were playing with the country's security.

The Aam Aadmi Party hit back, questioning the police investigation.

In a series of tweets, Nadda said people of the country and Delhi today have seen the "dirty face" of AAP.

"For political longing, Kejriwal and his people even sold the security of the country. Earlier, Kejriwal used to insult the Army and advocate terrorists, but today relations with those who carry out their terrorist activities came to light," he said.

Nadda said he wanted to make it clear to Kejriwal that this country is bigger than any election, any government, and "this nation will not forgive those who play with its security. Kejriwal and his entire team have been exposed. The people of Delhi will give a befitting reply".

He claimed the entire country has seen "photos of Imam Hussain, the MLA and former minister of the Delhi government, with a radical terrorist organisation, PFI".

Days before Delhi goes to polls, police claimed that Baisala is a member of the Aam Aadmi Party. They said Baisala joined the party in early 2019 along with his father.

Police said it had photos of Baisala purportedly joining AAP along with his father Gaje Singh last year.

AAP's Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh alleged that photos which were part of investigation were leaked to the BJP. He also said the party will approach the Election Commission to raise this issue, which has cropped up four days before the polling date.

"On whose instance, the police is giving statement? How did the photos which were part of the investigation reach the BJP? Before the news came out, Manoj Tiwari in the morning stated that the accused was from AAP. How did Manoj Tiwari get this news," Singh questioned in a press conference.

Union minister and BJP's in-charge for the Delhi polls, Prakash Javadekar, in a press conference alleged that "their (AAP's) designs are very clear from the beginning and they are trying every trick".

The whole conspiracy of AAP is to "divide society, cause fear in a community and create a vote bank," he charged.

Javadekar also claimed that photos of Baisala were recovered by police from his mobile phone although they were erased.

He also claimed that Baisala and his father were welcomed by Sanjay Singh at their joining of AAP.

"This proves AAP misleads youth and pushes them on the wrong path. AAP's strategy is to divide two communities, they want to instigate riots in Delhi," Javadekar alleged.

He further alleged that AAP leader Sanjay Singh had said violence would take place in Delhi. Their "conspiracy has been exposed by Delhi Police," he claimed.

"We condemn this politics of AAP," he said.

Javadekar also claimed this was "not an isolated incident" as AAP member Amanatullah Khan made a "very provocative speech" and the party supported Shaheen Bagh and did not give permission for the prosecution of members of the "tukde-tukde gang".

He hinted the BJP could approach the Election Commission against AAP over the issue.

New Delhi, Jun 29: Fuel prices rose on Monday again after a days pause with oil marketing companies increasing the pump price of petrol by 5 paisa and diesel by 13 paisa per litre in Delhi.

In the national capital, petrol price on Monday stood at Rs 80.43 per litre while that of diesel at Rs 80.53 a litre.

With this increase, fuel prices have moved up on 22 of the last 23 days (with no rise on Sunday). Petrol prices, however, were unchanged for an additional day in between after the daily revision based on dynamic pricing was reinstated by OMCs.

Since the daily price revision resumed on June 7, petrol price has increased Rs 9.17 and diesel rose by Rs 11.14 in the national capital. In the other cities the magnitude of increase was similar.

During the past 23 days, the quantum of price hike gradually declined from around 60 paise raise for a few days, immediately post the resumption of daily price revision, to less than 20 paise during the past few days and now even less than 10 paisa per litre.

In a historic development, the price of diesel surged above that of petrol in the national capital during this period. It continues to remain higher even though on Saturday the quantum of petrol price hike was higher than that of diesel.

Officials in oil marketing companies said that it is hard to predict which of the two fuels will be priced higher in the Capital as the gap between the two is almost negligible. But petrol prices have shown more volatility in international markets that may take it ahead once again in coming days.

Apart from Delhi, the retail prices of petrol and diesel have followed the traditional path in other metros with petrol being priced at a premium of between Rs 5 and 8 per litre. The difference between the auto fuel prices in Delhi and other metros is because of the taxation structure.

While both petrol and diesel are at similar levels of taxes (state and centre) in Delhi, it is higher for petrol in many other Indian cities.

Globally diesel is priced a tad higher than petrol. In India too, the base price of diesel is slightly higher than petrol but taxation at central and state levels changed the complexion of retail prices.

If the price of petroleum products and crude hold their positions in global markets, then petrol and diesel prices rise may stop for a longer period and we may even see marginal fall in prices.

Fuel prices have been increasing since June 7 when oil companies began the daily price revision mechanism after a hiatus of 82 days during the lockdown.

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.