Congress has become a laughing club in Himachal Pradesh, says Modi

New Delhi, Apr 24: The Central government said on Wednesday that the number of COVID-19 cases in the country is now doubling in every 10 days, adding that had the lockdown not been imposed on time, the number of cases would have sky-rocketed to over one lakh by now.

"Had we not taken the decision to impose nationwide lockdown, we would have had around one lakh COVID-19 cases by now. This is a reasonable estimate," said Niti Aayog member V.K. Paul.

Paul, who is also the Chairman of the government's Empowered Committee- 1, said the "cases are now doubling in every 10 days."

"As on March 21, our doubling time of cases was three days. Results started showing on March 23, due to travel restrictions imposed earlier. On April 6, further slowing of doubling rate became visible, thanks to the nationwide lockdown," he added.

He further added that the decision to impose the lockdown was timely and asserted that the curve has begun to flatten.

"Nationwide lockdown helped take us away from the exponential growth curve and thereby contain the growth of COVID-19 cases," he said.

Paul further added that surveillance has been a great strength in containing the spread of the virus.

"Besides containing the spread, augmenting testing and improving preparedness, the nation has brought about a massive behavioural change through a ‘Jan Andolan' (mass movement)," he said.

Meanwhile, the number of confirmed cases in the country has crossed the 23,000-mark, with 718 deaths. Globally, the number of cases has crossed 2.7 million while the death toll has mounted to 1.9 lakh.

Mumbai, Mar 9: The mayhem in domestic stock markets deepened with the BSE Sensex falling over 2,400 points and the Nifty50 trading below 10,400 points.

The plunge in the domestic indices was in line with the global markets on persistent fears of economic impact of the coronavirus epidemic.

Stocks of Reliance Industries registered the biggest fall in over 10 years as it fell to Rs 1,094.95 per share. At 1.34 p.m., it was trading at Rs 1,100, lower by Rs 170.05 or 13.39 per cent from its previous close. The stock fell most since October 2008.

The benchmark index of BSE Sensex was trading at 35,232.67 points, lower by 2,343.95 points or 6.24% from the previous close of 37,576.62 points. 

It had opened at the intra-day high of 36,950.20 and has so far touched a low of 35,109.18.

The Nifty50 on the National Stock Exchange was trading at 10,314.25 points, lower by 675.20 points or 6.14% from the previous close. 

It was a sell-off across sectors, led by financial, metal, energy and IT stocks - which weighed on the markets.

Further, crude oil prices also slumped around 30% on Monday as Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OEPC) failed to agree on an output cut deal, eventually causing Saudi Arabia to cut its prices as it is likely to increase its production. Saudi Arabia's stance has already raised concerns of an all-out price war.

Brent crude futures are currently trading around $34 per barrel.

On Saturday, Saudi Arabia announced massive discounts to its official selling prices for April, and the nation is reportedly preparing to increase its production above the 10 million barrel per day mark, according to reports.

As per analysts, the oil market witnessed the worst price fall on Monday since the 1991 Gulf War.

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.