Leaders are feeling suffocated in Cong: Amit Shah asks party to self-introspect

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.

Geneva, Jun 24: The global cumulative count of confirmed coronavirus cases is approaching nine million, with 133,326 cases recorded over the past day, the World Health Organisation (WHO) said in its daily situation report on Tuesday.

Over the past 24 hours, 3,847 people died from COVID-19 worldwide, taking the cumulative death toll to 469,587 fatalities, according to the report.

The global case total has now reached 8,993,659.

The Americas still account for the majority of cases and deaths -- 4.4 million and 224,207, respectively.

The United States remains the country with the highest count of cases and fatalities -- 2.3 million and 119,761, respectively.

New Delhi, Mar 6: As panicky depositors rushed to withdraw money from Yes Bank whose control was seized by the RBI in a dramatic late-night move, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Friday assured depositors that their money is safe and said the central bank was working for an early resolution of the crisis.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Thursday evening capped withdrawals at Rs 50,000 for the next one month and imposed strict limits on operations at the country's fourth-largest private lender that faced "regular outflow of liquidity" after an effort to raise new capital failed.

"I am in continuous interaction with the RBI. The RBI is fully seized of the matter and has assured they will give a quick resolution," Sitharaman said here.

She said no depositor will lose his or her money and insisted that the immediate priority is to ensure Yes Bank customers are able to withdraw money within the stipulated cap.

"I want to assure every depositor that their money shall be safe. Their monies are safe," she said. "I am constantly in contact with the RBI and the steps that are taken are taken in the interest of depositors, banks and economy. We are fully seized of the development."

She was talking to reporters after meeting State Bank of India (SBI) Chairman Rajnish Kumar. On Thursday, the SBI board gave its "in-principle" approval to exploring investment opportunities in Yes Bank.

"So I repeat, the depositors can be assured that their money is safe," she said.

Soon after the RBI takeover, depositors thronged Yes Bank ATMs to withdraw money and police had to be deployed in some places to control the crowds.

Yes Bank has 1,000 branches across the country.

Refusing to elaborate on her meeting with the SBI chairman, the minister said that "was on a completely different matter".

"RBI governor has given me assurance that there will be an appropriate resolution soon. No depositor will lose (money)," she said. "Reserve Bank has taken cognizance of the problem."

The central bank, she said, has gone through the "process over and over again to find out an amicable solution".

"And that has been over the last couple of months. So it is not as if they have come in suddenly now. We have been monitoring the situation," she said adding the RBI has appointed an administrator who previously was with the SBI.

"Both the RBI and the government are looking at this with all the details before them, not just today. I have personally monitored the situation over the last couple of months with the RBI. Therefore we have taken a course which will be in everybody's interest," she added.

Yes Bank had been seeking new capital since last year to bolster its ratios and quell questions about its stability due to its exposure to the non-banking finance industry entangled in a prolonged crunch in the local credit market.

The SBI chairman said the resolution to the Yes Bank crisis will come "very shortly".

"This is not a sectoral problem. It is a bank-specific problem," he said. "The RBI will take all steps to ensure financial stability."

On SBI picking up a stake in Yes Bank, he said the lender already has an in-principle approval for doing so.

"If SBI has to pick up a stake in Yes Bank, we have an in-principle approval for that," he said.

Commenting on the crisis at Yes Bank, Alka Anbarasu, Vice President – Senior Credit Officer, Financial Institutions, Moody's Investors Service, said: "RBI's moratorium on Yes Bank is credit negative as it affects timely repayment of bank depositors and creditors."

"While Moody's expects Indian authorities will take steps to prevent the weakness in the bank's viability from significantly impacting its depositors and senior creditors, the lack of a coordinated and timely action highlights continued uncertainty around bank resolutions in India," she said.