Indian-Americans, Students Protest Against Citizenship Act in US

Washington, Feb 22: US President Donald Trump will raise the issue of religious freedom with Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his visit to India next week, the White House said on Friday, noting that the US has great respect for India's democratic traditions and institutions.

"President Trump will talk about our shared tradition of democracy and religious freedom both in his public remarks and then certainly in private. He will raise these issues, particularly the religious freedom issue, which is extremely important to this administration," a senior official told reporters in a conference call.

The official was responding to a question on whether the president was planning to speak to Modi on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act or the National Register of Citizens.

"We do have this shared commitment to upholding our universal values, the rule of law. We have great respect for India's democratic traditions and institutions, and we will continue to encourage India to uphold those traditions," the official said, requesting anonymity.

"And we are concerned with some of the issues that you have raised," the senior administration official said, in response to the question on CAA and NRC.

"I think the President will talk about these issues in his meetings with Prime Minister Modi and note that the world is looking to India to continue to uphold its democratic traditions, respect for religious minorities," the official said.

"Of course, it's in the Indian constitution -- religious freedom, respect for religious minorities, and equal treatment of all religions. So this is something that is important to the president and I'm sure it will come up," said the official.

Pointing out that India has a strong democratic foundation, the official said India is a country rich in religious, linguistic, and cultural diversity.

"In fact, it's the birthplace of four major world religions," the official noted.

Mar 21: India’s economy, already in the grip of a slowdown, is in for more pain after Prime Minister Narendra Modi appealed to citizens to stay at and work from home to curb the coronavirus outbreak.

The services sector, which accounts for about 55% of India’s gross domestic product, is poised to be the worst hit after Modi, in a late evening address on Thursday, urged citizens to go on a self-imposed curfew for a day and private companies to allow employees to work from home for longer. In the country’s vast informal sector, social-distancing measures could mean a dent to productivity and consumption because of job or pay losses.

“The impact of a partial lock-down or social distancing will be significant,” said Rahul Bajoria, a senior economist at Barclays Plc in Mumbai. “If there’s a widespread community outbreak, GDP could fall as low as 3.5% in the year starting April 1.”

Shrinking output may limit growth in an economy that’s already set to expand at an 11-year low of 5% in the current year to March 31. Before the virus outbreak, India had forecast growth to recover to 6%-6.5% in the next fiscal year. S&P Global Ratings and Fitch Ratings have already slashed their growth forecast by 50 basis points.

“The current social-distancing measures will severely impact airlines, hotels, malls, multiplexes, restaurants and retailers,” according to analysts at Crisil Ltd., the local unit of S&P Global. “Lower footfalls and occupancies, decline in business volume and sub-optimal operating efficiencies will impact cash flows of companies in these sectors,” wrote the analysts led by Chief Economist Dharmakirti Joshi.

The government will try to announce a relief package for virus-affected sectors as early as possible, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said Friday.

In a televised address, Modi advised all citizens to stay at home for a day on March 22, as he sought to stem the spread of the coronavirus -- cases of which are relatively low in India at about 200, compared with more than 200,000 infected people globally. His government also barred incoming flights for a week from that day, joining a growing list of countries effectively sealing their borders.

What Bloomberg’s Economists Say

We had only earlier this week lowered our GDP outlook to consider the direct impact of the local outbreak as confirmed virus cases exceeded 100 as of March 15 and the federal and state governments announced social distancing measures that have already started to crimp economic activity. We are now revising down our GDP estimate for 4Q fiscal 2020 to 3.3%, from our 3.5%.

-- Abhishek Gupta, India economist

For more, click here

“Consumption being the biggest component of GDP, a lock-down is bound to have a big impact on the economy,” said Devendra Kumar Pant, chief economist at India Ratings and Research, the local unit of Fitch. “Modeling uncertainty in any system will be very difficult, but one can say the slowdown could deepen or prolong further.”

Work From Home

While companies, including billionaire Mukesh Ambani-controlled Reliance Industries Ltd., are asking employees to work from home, the option isn’t feasible in India’s vast informal sector.

“The option to work remotely simply won’t exist for most,” said Shilan Shah, an economist with Capital Economics Pte. in Singapore.

As many households don’t have savings buffers, the government would probably have to back this up with large-scale cash handouts that reach the poorest, he said.

Work from home is posing implementation challenges for the manufacturing sector where workers are required to be physically present at the production sites. The services sector, such as banking and information technology, also needs employees to be present in offices as confidential data is used, according to industry group Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

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.