Muslim student leader shot dead in broad daylight; CM calls for peace

New Delhi, May 9: With 3,320 coronavirus cases and 95 deaths reported in the last 24 hours, India's COVID-19 cases rose to 59,662 on Saturday, informed the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The total number of active cases in the country now stands at 39,834 while the number of cured/discharged/migrated stands at 17,847.

The country has reported 1,981 deaths so far, added the Ministry.

Maharashtra has the highest number of cases with 19, 063 followed by Gujarat with 7,402 cases and Delhi with 6,318 cases.

Meanwhile, the country continues to remain in a lockdown slated to end on May 17.

Dubai, May 5: Tickets on repatriation flights from UAE to India, which start on May 7, could be costlier than regular airfare, and adding to the financial woes of those flying back. Nearly 200,000 Indians in the UAE have registered on the website seeking to return home.

“A one-way repatriation ticket to Delhi will cost approximately Dh1,400-Dh1,650 - this would earlier have cost between Dh600-Dh700 [during these months],” said Jamal Abdulnazar, CEO of Cozmo Travel. “A one-way repatriation flight ticket to Kerala would cost approximately Dh1,900-Dh2,300.”

This can be quite a burden, as a majority of those taking these flights have either lost their jobs or are sending back their families because of uncertainty on the work front. To now have to pay airfare that is nearly on par with those during peak summer months is quite a blow.

Sources said that officials in Indian diplomatic missions have already initiated calls to some expats, telling them about likely ticket fares and enquiring about their willingness to travel.

Although many believed repatriation would be government-sponsored, Indian authorities have clarified that customers would have to pay for the tickets themselves. Those who thought they were entitled to free repatriation might back out of travel plans for now.

Fact of life

But aviation and travel industry sources say higher rates cannot be escaped since social distancing norms have to be strictly enforced at all times. That would limit the number of passengers on each of these flights.

“One airline can carry only limited passengers - therefore, multiple airlines are likely to get the approval to operate repatriation flights,” said Abdulnazar. “Also, airports will have to maintain safe distance for passengers to queue up at immigration and security counters.

“Therefore, it is recommended that multiple carriers fly into multiple Indian airports for repatriation to be expedited.”

The Indian authorities, so far, have not taken the easy decision to get its private domestic airlines into the rescue act. Gulf News tried speaking to the leading players, but they declined to provide any official statements. So far, only Air India, the national airline, has been commissioned to operate the flights.

Air India finds itself in the driver's seat when it comes to operating India's repatriation flights. To date, there is no confirmation India's private airlines will be allowed to join in.

UAE carriers ready to help out

UAE’s Emirates airline, Etihad, flydubai and Air Arabia are likely to also operate repatriation flights to India after Air India implements the first phase of services.

“We are fully supporting governments and authorities across the flydubai network with their repatriation efforts, helping them to make arrangements for their citizens to return home,” said a flydubai spokesperson.

“We will announce repatriation flights as and when they are confirmed, recognising this is an evolving situation whilst the flight restrictions remain in place.”

An AirArabia spokesperson said the airline is ready to operate repatriation flights when the government tells them to.

Travel agencies likely to benefit

Apart from operating non-scheduled commercial flights, the Indian government is also deploying naval ships to bring expat Indians back. Sources claim the ships are to ferry passengers who cannot afford the repatriation airfares.

Even then, considering the sheer numbers who will want to get on the flights, travel agencies are likely to see a surge in bookings since airline websites alone may not cope with the demand set off in such a short span.

Learn from Gulf governments

In instances when they carried out their own repatriation flights, some GCC governments paid the ticket fares to fly in their citizens. Those citizens who did not have the ready funds could approach their diplomatic mission and aid would be given on a case-to-case basis.

Should Indians wait for normal services to resume?

Industry sources say that those Indians wanting to fly back and cannot afford the repatriation flights should wait for full services to resume once the COVID-19 pandemic settles.

But can those who lost their jobs or seen steep salary cuts stay on without adding to their costs? And is there any guarantee that when flight services resume, ticket rates would be lower than on the repatriation trips.

As such, normal travel is expected to pick up only after the repatriation exercise to several countries is completed. UAE-based travel agencies are not seeing any bookings for summer, which is traditionally the peak holiday season.

“Majority want to stay put unless full confidence is restored,” said Abdulnazar. “I expect full normalcy to be restored not until March 2021.

“People have also taken a hit to their income. Without disposable income, you will curtail your travel.”

What constitutes normalcy?

Airfares are expected to remain high, given the need to keep the middle seats empty to practise safe distance onboard.

“We expect holiday travel to resume by October or November - but, the travel sentiment will not go back to pre-COVID-19 levels anytime soon,” said Manvendra Roy, Vice-President – Commercial at holidayme, an online travel agency. “The need to keep the middle seat vacant will add 30-40 per cent pricing pressure per seat from an airline perspective.

“This will make holidays more expensive.”

As for business travel, it will take some time to recover. Corporate staff are now used to getting work done via conference calls. “Companies will also curtail their travel expenditure since their income has taken a hit,” said Abdulnazar.

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.