Haji Hameed Kandak calls for unity among Ahinda communities, collapses on stage, dies

Bengaluru, Jun 14: Karnataka Medical Education Minister K Sudhakar on Sunday said there was no question of reimposition of the lockdown amid speculation that it would be done.

"The question of lockdown is not in front of us. There is such speculation as the Prime Minister is holding a video conference with all Chief Ministers on June 16 and 17.

On June 17 our state will be taking part in it at around 3 pm," Mr Sudhakar said in response to a question.

Speaking to reporters at Kalaburagi, he said the current situation would be discussed in that meeting. Mr Sudhakar said the Prime Minister has repeatedly been holding such video conferencing exercises to take stock of the situation and plan for the future.

"There will not be a lockdown anymore according to me," he added.

There has been speculation that there would be another shutdown from this month owing to a rapid rise in the number of cases.

Listen to the latest songs, only on JioSaavn.com
Mr Sudhakar had on Friday said experts have indicated a surge in COVID-19 cases in the state in August and that the government was taking all precautionary measures in that direction.

As of June 13 evening, cumulatively 6,824 COVID-19 positive cases have been confirmed in the state, which includes 81 deaths and 3,648 discharges.

New Delhi, Mar 11: According to the Union health ministry, there are 62 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the country.

The Delhi High Court Wednesday sought the stand of the Centre and the Delhi government on a PIL seeking proper and adequate measures to combat coronavirus.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar issued notice to the Ministry of Health and the Delhi government seeking their replies on the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by an advocate.

The petition, by lawyer Triveni Potekar, seeks directions to the Centre and the Delhi government to make available important and relevant information on access to and availability of medical facilities for testing and treatment for the coronavirus disease.

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.