J&K administration withdraws security of 5 separatist leaders

May 30: A Delhi court on Saturday granted interim bail for 10 days to former municipal councillor from the Congress Ishrat Jahan, who has been booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, to get married.

She has been booked under the anti-terror law in a case related to communal violence in northeast Delhi in February.

Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana granted the interim relief from June 10 to June 19 to Jahan on furnishing two sureties of Rs 1 lakh.

The court directed her not to tamper with any evidence or influence the witnesses in the case.

According to the interim bail plea, filed through advocates S K Sharma and Lalit Valeecha, Jahan's marriage was fixed in 2018 for June 12, 2020.

The plea further said that Jahan would not tamper with any evidence or influence the witnesses if granted bail.

The petition, also filed through advocates Tushar Anand and Manu Prabhakar, claimed that Jahan has been falsely implicated in the case.

It alleged that upon bare perusal of the contents of the FIR, no incident of violence can be attributed to her and the wild and baseless allegations made against her were not only irresponsible and false, but also caused serious harm to her reputation.

Jahan, who is also an advocate, was only a supporter of ongoing peaceful protests and it was one of the fundamental rights of the citizens to protest and register their dissent against any unreasonable measure of the government, the plea said.

Besides Jahan, Jamia Millia Islamia University students Asif Iqbal Tanha, Gulfisha Khatoon, Jamia Coordination Committee members Safoora Zargar, Meeran Haider, president of Jamia Alumni Association Shifa-Ur-Rehman, suspended AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, activist Khalid Safi, JNU student Natasha Narwal and former student leader Umar Khalid have also been booked under the anti-terror law in the case.

The police had claimed in the FIR that Khalid and his associates had instigated people to start riots in the area and it was a "premeditated conspiracy".

Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control, leaving at least 53 people dead and around 200 injured.

New Delhi, Jun 8: Abortion access to around 1.85 million women was compromised across the country due to the nationwide restrictions imposed in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, a study conducted by Ipas Development Foundation (IDF) revealed.

These abortions were compromised at all points of care, including public and private sector facilities and chemist outlets during 68-day lockdown and the first week of Unlock 0.1 period. The study assesses the near-term impact of COVID-19 on abortion access in India since March 25 when the lockdown was imposed across the country with the announcement of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to contain the spread of novel coronavirus of COVID-19 pandemic.

It also highlights the need for a specially designed and integrated recovery plan for improving abortion services at facilities. The study estimates that access to abortion was highly compromised during lockdown 1 and 2 ( between March 25 and May 3) in which around 59 per cent of women seeking an abortion could not access the services.

However, with the Unlock phase or the recovery period as mentioned in the study starting on June 1, the situation is expected to improve - with 33 per cent abortions being compromised in 24 days. A huge number of women could not access safe abortion services during the lockdown, therefore it is extremely important that the healthcare system, public and private, is prepared to meet the needs of these women, the Ipas foundation says.

The model of the study strives to quantify the reduced access to abortions across three different points of care -public health facilities, private health facilities, and chemist outlets, said Vinoj Manning, CEO, Ipas Development Foundation in a statement.

"Majority of public health facilities and their staff are now focused on COVID-19 treatments and closures of private health facilities have compromised the access to safe abortions, which is a time-sensitive procedure."

He said that the study conducted by his foundation was to get a clearer picture of how COVID-19 restrictions have affected women seeking safe abortion services and what are the areas that would need focused efforts in the days to come.

Speaking on the methodology, Dr Sushanta Kumar Banerjee from Ipas Development Foundation said: "We conducted telephonic surveys and consulted with several experts from FOGSI leadership and social marketing organizations like PSI India Private Limited."

"After careful analysis of the data received from them, we have concluded that of the 3.9 million abortions that would have taken place in 3 months, access to around 1.85 million was compromised due to COVID-19 restrictions."

To facilitate the process Ipas Development Foundation has issued some initial recommendations which include: rapid mapping of facilities for first and second trimester abortions, assessing facilities' preparedness especially for second-trimester abortions, improving referral linkage and spread the word about the availability of the service, streamlining the supply chain for medical abortion drugs, and lastly including mechanisms to offset additional travel and out of pocket expenditures.

Ipas Development Foundation will be holding consultations with other partners and key stakeholders to facilitate meaningful collaborations to ensure access to safe abortions and ensure that no woman suffers long-term harm to her health due to lack of services.

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.