Jignesh Mevani's rally cancelled, triggers massive protests in Delhi

New Delhi, Mar 19: Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi took oath as Rajya Sabha MP on Thursday.

Gogoi's wife Rupanjali Gogoi, daughter, and son in law were also present in Parliament.

Congress staged a walkout from the Rajya Sabha over Gogoi's membership to the House.

Meanwhile, Union Minister Ravishankar Prasad welcomed Gogoi in the Rajya Sabha.

President Ram Nath Kovind had nominated the former CJI to the Rajya Sabha on March 16.

Gogoi served as the 46th Chief Justice of India from October 3, 2018, to November 17, 2019.

On November 9, 2019, a five-judge Bench headed by him had delivered the verdict in the long-pending Ramjanmabhoomi case.

Mumbai, Jan 3: The Shiv Sena on Friday targeted the Centre by questioning the "efficacy" of the 2016 surgical strike and said the perception that it would demoralise Pakistani terrorists remained an "illusion" as Indian soldiers continue to get killed in terror attacks in Kashmir.

Accusing the Modi government of boasting about how Pakistan was straightened out after the surgical strike, the Sena sought to know whether it has really happened.

It also observed that troubled borders were not good for the country's well-being.

The Sena's remarks come in the wake of the death of an Army soldier from Maharashtra, Naik Sandip Raghunath Sawant, who was killed during a counter-insurgency operation in Jammu and Kashmir on Wednesday.

"The New Year did not begin on a positive note in Kashmir. Our jawan from Satara, Sandip Sawant, attained martyrdom in Kashmir along with two other soldiers. In the last one month, seven to eight jawans from Maharashtra were killed in the line of duty. The Maha Vikas Aghadi government in Maharashtra is not responsible for this," the Sena said in an editorial in party mouthpiece 'Saamana'.

The party also questioned whether the situation in Kashmir has improved after the surgical strike and abrogation of Article 370 provisions.

The party, however, maintained that scrapping Article 370 was a good move.

India had conducted the surgical strike on September 29, 2016, across the Line of Control (LoC) as a response to a terrorist attack on an Indian Army base in Uri sector of Jammu and Kashmir earlier that month.

Without naming the Centre, the Sena alleged, "Circulating news that only the Pakistanis were getting killed in Kashmir will not change the reality as tricolour-draped bodies of Indian soldiers, like Sawant, are reaching their respective villages."

"There is a bloodshed along the Kashmir border and mounting anger among the families of martyred jawans. The perception that surgical strike will demoralise Pakistani terrorists has turned out to be an illusion. In fact, the (terror) attacks have increased," it added.

The Uddhav Thackeray-led party accused the ruling BJP of boasting about straightening out Pakistan after the surgical strike.

"But has Pakistan been really straightened out? Rather Pakistan has been indulging in ceasefire violations along the LoC every day," it added.

The Shiv Sena also questioned the government's claim that the situation in Kashmir was under control after the nullification of Article 370.

"It is good that Article 370 was scrapped. Before that, surgical strike was carried out in Pakistan. But has the situation in Kashmir improved? The terror attacks continue. It's only that there is a control in reporting (these incidents)," it said.

The Sena also alleged that there was no clarity as to what was transpiring in Kashmir after the scrapping of Article 370 and only the media reports of soldiers sacrificing their lives have been coming out from that state

In a veiled attack on the BJP, its erstwhile ally, the Sena, also accused it of exploiting the surgical strike for political gains.

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.