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

London, Mar 4: The UK government has reiterated its concern over the potential impact of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and said it is continuing to follow the events in India closely.

In response to an urgent question on “Recent Violence in India” tabled by Pakistani-origin Opposition Labour Party MP Khalid Mahmood in the House of Commons on Tuesday, UK’s Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Nigel Adams said the UK engages with India at all levels, including on human rights, and also referred to the country's "proud history" of inclusive government and religious tolerance.

"The UK government also have concerns about the potential impact of the legislation (CAA),” said Adams, the Minister for Asia who was standing in for UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, who is on a visit to Turkey.

"It is because of our close relationship with the government of India that we are able to discuss difficult issues with them and make clear our concerns where we have them, including on the rights of minorities. We will continue to follow events closely and to raise our concerns when we have with them,” said the minister.

While Mahmood, who had tabled the urgent question for an FCO statement, described the government response as “facile”, another Pakistani-origin MP Nusrat Ghani called on the government to relay the UK Parliament's concerns to the Indian authorities.

British Sikh Labour MP Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi said the violence had brought back “painful personal memories” from the 1984 Sikh riots while he was studying in India and fellow Sikh MP Preet Kaur Gill also referenced 1984 in her intervention.

Other MPs sought to highlight the steps taken by the Indian authorities to restore “peace and tranquillity” in Delhi.

“He will be aware that it is not just Muslims who have been killed; Hindus have also been killed as part of the riots,” said Conservative Party MP Bob Blackman.

Scottish National Party (SNP) MP Alyn Smith sought the UK government’s intervention to share best practice around countering the online disinformation campaign being used in India to “inflame tensions”.

“We are in constant contact on these issues, and we know how important this is to Members of Parliament and their constituents, who may have family in the area,” said Adams, in his response.

Mumbai, Jul 1: Mumbai police on Wednesday imposed section 144 of CrPC prohibiting the movement of people in public places and gatherings, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, an official said.

The prohibitory order, issued by a senior police official, says restrictions on the movement of residents for non- essential work will remain in force till July 15.

The order prohibits "presence or movement of one or more persons in public places or gathering of any sort", the official said.

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.