Curtains down on personality-driven politics in TN?

Feb 4: Amid the agitations against Citizenship Amendment Act, National register of Citizens and National Population Registration across the country, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday said that there is a "political design" behind all these protests including in Delhi's Jamia and Shaheen Bagh to ruin the harmony of the nation.

"Be it Seelampur, Jamia or Shaheen Bagh, protests held over the past several days regarding the Citizenship Amendment Bill. Is this just a coincidence? No. This is an experiment," said Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his first election rally for Delhi polls at Karkardooma.

"There is a political design behind all these protests including Jamia and Shaheen Bagh. These protests are a conspiracy to divide India. These protests are going to ruin the harmony of the nation," he asserted.

Lambasting the opposition parties including Congress and Aam Aadmi Party for supporting the ongoing protests, he said: "But AAP and Congress are provoking people. Constitution and tricolor are being kept in front and attention is being diverted from the real conspiracy."

"These people were doubting the ability of our forces during surgical strikes. Do citizens of Delhi want such people in power? These people are saving those who want to break India into pieces," he added.

People have been protesting at Jamia and Shaheen Bagh against CAA, NRC and NPR. Members of the Opposition have deemed CAA "discriminatory and anti-Constitution" while the Centre has maintained that the new law has no effect on Indian citizens.

Recently, two firing incidents took place near Jamia Millia Islamia University.On Sunday night, the firing incident was reported near gate number five at the university following which people including some students of the varsity gathered outside the Jamia Nagar police station. They returned from the Jamia Nagar police station after their complaint was registered.

Earlier, a student sustained injuries after a young man fired at the protestors near Jamia.

Indore, Jan 24: Around 80 Muslim leaders of the BJP in Madhya Pradesh on Friday resigned from the primary membership of the party in protest over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, calling it a "divisive" measure.

One of the leaders, Rajik Qureshi Farshiwala, said around 80 Muslim partymen have resigned from the BJP's primary membership after writing to the newly-appointed national president, J P Nadda, on Thursday.

These leaders, who dubbed the CAA "a divisive provision made on religious grounds", include several office- bearers of the BJP's minority cell, he said.

"It was becoming increasingly difficult for us to participate in our community's events after the CAA came into existence (in December 2019).

"At these events, people used to curse us and ask us how long we plan to keep quiet on a divisive law like the CAA?" he said.

"Persecuted refugees of any community should get Indian citizenship. You cannot decide that a particular person is an intruder or a terrorist merely on the basis of religion," Farshiwala added.

In their letter, the Muslim leaders stated, "Citizens have right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. But the BJP-led Central Government is implementing the CAA on religious grounds.

"This is an act of dividing the country and against the basic spirit of the Constitution."

Some of the leaders who have resigned are considered close to BJP general secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya.

When asked about the development, Vijayvargiya on Thursday evening said, "I am not aware of the matter. But we will explain (about the CAA) if a person is being misled."

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.