Real Ayodhya is in Nepal, Lord Ram was Nepali, says Nepal PM

New Delhi, Apr 16: South Delhi District Magistrate Brij Mohan Mishra on Thursday said that the administration is investigating how the pizza delivery boy contracted the coronavirus.

"In the last 15 days, we discovered houses he had delivered food. We contacted people living in 72 houses and they have been asked to stay in-home quarantine. No symptoms have been seen in people related to him. 

Testing of his roommate has been done and his reports are awaited. The rest of the people don't have any symptoms, they have been placed under institutional quarantine. Those in-home quarantines are also asymptomatic," Mishra said.

"Unless a positive case comes, we feel that transmission has not taken place. The boy told us that he was continuously wearing a mask while delivering the food. We are also finding out how he got infected. We are getting the information about the places he visited for delivery. He was tested on the basis of the doctor's advice. Later, he tested positive," he said.

72 families have to stay in home quarantine in the Malviya Nagar area after the delivery boy tested positive for COVID-19 on Wednesday.
Delhi Health Minister Satyendra Jain said that 17 other delivery boys linked with the infected person have also been placed under institutional quarantine.

"A pizza delivery boy has been detected with COVID-19 here. 17 other delivery boys linked with him have been placed under institutional quarantine and 72 people have been placed under home quarantine," Jain said.

Food delivery app Zomato said that the staff of the infected person's restaurant has delivered some orders which were placed on its platform.

"We've been made aware today that a restaurant's employee, who has been recently tested positive for COVID-19, had delivered food in the past to a few customers in the Malviya Nagar area in Delhi. All these customers have already been contacted by the govt authorities... We are not sure whether the rider was infected at the time of delivery," the company said in a statement.

Zomato also claimed that colleagues of the delivery boy have tested negative for COVID-19.
"This restaurant had instructed their riders to wear masks and follow strict hygiene to keep customers safe from any unintended mishap.

All co-workers of the said rider have been tested negative. And as a precaution, the restaurant where this rider worked has suspended operations," read the statement.

Baharampore, Jan 30: Two persons were killed and one was injured in a clash over a protest programme against the CAA and the proposed NRC in West Bengal's Murshidabad district on Wednesday, police said.

The incident occured after an argument broke out between the two sides at Jalangi over a protest programme opposing Citizenship Amendment Act.

According to the police, a scuffle broke out between the local TMC leaders and residents' forum 'Nagarik Mancha', which was observing a shutdown in the area against the amended citizenship act and the proposed country-wide NRC.

The residents' forum was asked to withdraw the shutdown and the situation turned violent as both sides came to blows and hurled bombs at each other. Several two-wheelers and cars were damaged and set on fire during the clash.

Local TMC MP Abu Taher, denied that the party was involved in the clash and alleged that the violence was by Congress and CPI(M) supporters.

"I have requested the police to look into the incident. The culprits should be immediately arrested," he said.

Senior Congress leader and MLA Manoj Chakraborty said that the party was not involved in the incident and demanded judicial inquiry into it.

The injured have been rushed to Murshidabad Medical College and Hospital here, the police said.

The Muslim-majority district had witnessed violence and arson during the anti-CAA protests across the state in December last year.

West Bengal became the fourth state after Left-ruled Kerala, and Punjab and Rajasthan, where the Congress is in power, to have passed a resolution on January 27 against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The state assembly had on September 6, 2019, passed a resolution against NRC.

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.