Gangster Munna Bajrangi shot dead inside UP jail

New Delhi, Jan 30: In a major shift of strategy ahead of the Delhi assembly polls, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has decided to rope in its senior leaders for massive public rallies.

Its star campaigners like Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, BJP chief JP Nadda, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, and other union ministers would now be addressing massive public rallies in addition to ongoing neighbourhood meetings.

"The big rallies would begin from February 1. While 'Nukkad' meetings will take place till the last day of campaigning, there would be big rallies of the top leadership of the party, " informed a senior party leader.

Sources said the BJP has changed its strategy after the success of its grassroots contact programme as the party wants to consolidate its gains.

"As part of the reworked strategy the BJP has asked its various Mandals to organise public meetings of 10,000-15,000 people in each assembly segment to reach out to the masses," sources added.

While there are two planned for Prime Minister Modi, two have been planned for JDU chief and Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar along with Nadda and Amit Shah. Yogi Aadityanath too would be addressing 12 rallies.

The party is leaving no stone unturned to secure massive gains, which it feels can be converted to victory in the forthcoming polls.

Party sources feel that the relentless campaigning under the guidance of Amit Shah and Nadda has ensured that the morale of party cadre is at an all-time high.

"The neighbourhood meetings have ensured that we have been able to make the people of Delhi aware of the lack of work under the Arvind Kejriwal led Aam Aadmi Party government. They have also been apprised about the anti-national views of the opponents and we think that this is expected to turn the polls into our favour," sources added.

Delhi is scheduled for assembly polls on February 8 and the results for the 70 constituencies will be declared on February 11.

As part of the new strategy, senior leaders like JP Nadda, Amit Shah, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath, ministers like Rajnath Singh and Smriti Irani would be holding public rallies in various parts of the city. Several other chief ministers from various BJP ruled states are also expected to be roped in for the campaign.

The strategy for reach out to the masses is an attempt at weakening the hold of AAP on Delhi. With positive feedback coming after the success of the neighbourhood meetings in the past week, the BJP is now looking to increase its potential reach with polls just days away.

Till now the party had deployed 70 union ministers to hold at least one public meeting and one 'padayatra' each as part of the campaign.

New Delhi, May 19: In a fresh blow to saffronite journalist Arnab Goswami, the Supreme Court of India today rejected his plea seeking transfer of the investigation of a case, filed against him for defaming Congress interim president Sonia Gandhi, to the CBI. The court also refused to quash the FIRs filed against him.

Goswami, editor-in-chief of Republic TV, has been booked in connection with a TV show on the gathering of migrants outside Bandra railway station on April 14. This apart, multiple FIRs have been filed against him for his show on Palghar lynching. In that show, he had posed certain questions on the incident to Congress President Sonia Gandhi, following which Congress workers lodged complaints against him in various states.

Extending Goswami’s interim protection from arrest by three weeks, the Supreme Court said, “Right of a journalist under 19 1 (a) higher…Free citizens can’t exist if news media can’t speak.”

During the earlier hearing, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Goswami, had urged the court to transfer the probe to an agency like CBI. He said the “nature of the” second FIR against Goswami over a show on the migrant gathering outside Bandra station on April 14 “shows that it’s arm-twisting tactic”. 

“They are trying to stifle an unpleasant voice. This is a political party targeting a journalist. All complainants are members of one political party. They have a problem with the government. They want to teach this journalist a lesson,” he added.

Objecting to Salve’s plea to transfer the case to the CBI, Maharashtra government counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, had said, “CBI investigation will go into your hands”. 

Sibal denied that Goswami was being harassed and said he was only asked relevant questions. He said Goswami should “stop this communal violence and communal mongering”.

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.