CM Yogi officially renames Faizabad district as Ayodhya

New Delhi, Jan 16: Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Bipin Rawat on Thursday said that he supported a negotiated peace deal between the US and Taliban in Afghanistan.

Gen. Rawat was speaking along with other world leaders at Raisina dialogue organised by India's influential think-tank Observer Research Foundation (ORF).

Arguing that terrorism was going to stay in the world as long as states were going to use it against other states, he said it was important to prevent states from using terrorism as a "proxy war".

"The only way to deal with it was what the US did post 9/11," he said, adding that the war against terror was necessary.

However, now a peace deal with Taliban is required, Gen. Rawat said.

"It must be a negotiated peace deal so that the Taliban stops using terrorism," he added. Hinting that the US should maintain its presence in Afghanistan, the CDS said that though Afghan security forces are now equipped to fight back terror groups in Afghanistan but they still need support.

The newly appointed CDS officially confirmed that India has shifted its stance on Taliban. India has traditionally been opposed to the Pakistan-backed Taliban in Afghanistan. Thousands of Afghans were given refuge in India when they fled the country due to oppression and terrorism of the Taliban regime. India is in alignment with the democratically elected government in Kabul that the Taliban remains supported by Pakistan.

New Delhi/Washington, Feb 14: India has offered to partially open up its poultry and dairy markets in a bid for a limited trade deal during US President Donald Trump's first official visit to the country this month, people familiar with the protracted talks say.

India, the world's largest milk-producing nation, has traditionally restricted dairy imports to protect the livelihoods of 80 million rural households involved in the industry.

But Prime Minister Narendra Modi is trying to pull all the stops for the US President's February 24-25 visit, aimed at rebuilding bonds between the world's largest democracies.

In 2019, President Trump suspended India's special trade designation that dated back to 1970s, after PM Modi put price caps on medical devices, such as cardiac stents and knee implants, and introduced new data localization requirements and e-commerce restrictions.

President Trump's trip to India has raised hopes that he would restore some of the country's US trade preferences, in exchange for tariff reductions and other concessions.

The United States is India's second-largest trade partner after China, and bilateral goods and services trade climbed to a record $142.6 billion in 2018. The United States had a $23.2 billion goods trade deficit in 2019 with India, its 9th largest trading partner in goods.

India has offered to allow imports of US chicken legs, turkey and produce such as blueberries and cherries, government sources said, and has offered to cut tariffs on chicken legs from 100 per cent to 25 per cent. US negotiators want that tariff cut to 10 per cent. The Modi government is also offering to allow some access to India's dairy market, but with a 5 per cent tariff and quotas, the sources said. But dairy imports would need a certificate they are not derived from animals that have consumed feeds that include internal organs, blood meal or tissues of ruminants.

New Delhi has also offered to lower its 50 per cent tariffs on very large motorcycles made by Harley-Davidson, a tax that was a particular irritant for President Trump, who has labelled India the "tariff king." The change would be largely symbolic because few such motorcycles are sold in India.

President Trump will be feted in PM Modi's home state of Gujarat, then hold talks in New Delhi and attend a reception that the hosts have promised will be bigger than the one organised for former president Barack Obama in 2015.

But it is far from clear whether India's offers will be enough to satisfy US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who cancelled plans for a trip to India this week. Instead, he has held telephone talks with Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal.

The US dairy industry remained sceptical on Thursday that a viable deal is at hand.

"We're always looking for market access, but in terms of India, as of today I'm not aware of any real progress going on," said Michael Dykes, president of the International Dairy Foods Association and a member of USTR's agricultural trade policy advisory committee.

Mr Dykes said the US dairy industry was looking for access in viable commercial quantities.

A USTR spokesman and India's trade ministry did not respond to requests for comment.

A parliament panel is reviewing a draft data privacy law that imposes stringent controls over cross-border data flows and gives the government powers to seek user data from companies.

It is not clear whether it will be passed, or in what form, but the possibilities have unnerved US companies and could raise compliance requirements for Google, Amazon.com Inc, and Facebook.

The draft law is not part of the trade discussions, Indian officials say, because the issue is too difficult to resolve at the same time.

"The privacy and localization piece will be raised independently and in concert with the trade discussions," said a Washington-based source with knowledge of the US administration's thinking.

President Trump on Tuesday was non-committal about sealing a trade deal before his visit. "If we can make the right deal, we'll do it," he told reporters.

Two US sources said progress had been made on proposed alterations to the medical device price caps. India's new import tariffs on medical devices, walnuts, toys, electronics and other products on February 1 surprised US negotiators, however.

The new tariffs were aimed at China, which also makes medical devices, according to an Indian government source. "We have to protect our market and our companies," the source said.

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.