Lanka terror: Ninth bomb defused near Colombo airport

New Delhi, Jul 15: Former Rajasthan deputy chief minister Sachin Pilot on Wednesday said that he is "not" joining the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

"I am not joining BJP," said Pilot in a telephonic conversation with ANI.

The comments came a day after he was sacked as Rajasthan deputy chief minister and Pradesh Congress Committee chief by the party.

The decision to sack Pilot was taken yesterday after a CLP meeting at the Fairmont Hotel in Jaipur, Rajasthan.

At the meeting, as many as 102 MLAs unanimously demanded that Pilot should be removed from the party.

The Rajasthan Congress is in turmoil over the past few days. While chief minister Ashok Gehlot has blamed the BJP for attempting to destabilise the state government by poaching MLAs, Pilot has been camping in Delhi.

A controversy broke out in Rajasthan after special operation group (SOG) sent a notice to Pilot to record his statement in the case registered by SOG in the alleged poaching of Congress MLAs in the state.

Jan 29: Multiple organisations have called for a Bharat Bandh today in order to protest against the recently passed Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The Bharat  Bandh today has been organised in Surat in Gujarat, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh. Increased security measures have been put in place in the three states keeping in view the call for shutdown.

According to media reports, the call for Bharat Bandh was given by Maulana Sajjad Nomani of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). This was to protest against the controversial CAA-NRC. This call is supported by an NGO based in Surat, Versatile Minorities Forum (VMF). Apart from the VMF, the call for strikes has been supported by organizations such as Bahujan Kranti Morcha, National Association of Street Vendors of India Surat chapter and the Textile Market Workers' Union.

The workers of the VMF were also spotted distributing pamphlets and urging people to support the strike. Several shopkeepers have also put up notices stating that their shops will be shut for the day.

Earlier, Bharat Bandh was called by 10 trade unions and several bank employees in order to protest against the "anti-people policies of the government" on January 8 and 9. A few violent incidents during this Bharat Bandh were reported in West Bengal.

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.