Pakistan rejects U.S. report on religious freedom

Chennai, Jun 10: DMK MLA J Anbazhagan who had tested positive for coronavirus and was on ventilator support from June 3 passed away at a hospital in Chennai on Wednesday.

Coincidently, today is the 62nd birthday of the MLA.

"Anbazhagan J, who has been fighting for his life with severe COVID 19 pneumonia rapidly deteriorated early this morning. In spite of full medical support including mechanical ventilation at our COVID facility, he succumbed to his illness. He was declared dead at 08:05 hours on the 10th of June 2020," the hospital said in a statement.

In 2001, Anbazhagan was elected from T Nagar Assembly constituency. He served for five years.

Later in 2011, he was elected to Tamil Nadu Assembly from Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni seat. The DMK leader was re-elected from the same constituency in 2016.

New Delhi, Jul 9: The Central Board of Secondary Education has strongly defended its decision to drop topics like democratic rights, citizenship, federalism, secularism etc in the name of reducing the syllabus for Classes 9 to 12 due to COVID-19 pandemic. 

The board has claimed that the dropped lessons "are either being covered by the rationalised syllabus or in the Alternative Academic Calendar of NCERT".

The CBSE said it had to come up with the clarification after realizing its decision was "interpreted differently".

"The rationalisation of syllabus up to 30 per cent has been undertaken by the Board for nearly 190 subjects of class 9 to 12 for the academic session 2020-21 as a one-time measure only. The objective is to reduce the exam stress of students due to the prevailing health emergency situation and prevent learning gaps," it said.

While it has said that no questions can be asked from the reduced syllabus in the next board exams, the CBSE has also directed schools to follow alternative calendars prepared by the NCERT.

"Therefore each of the topics that have been wrongly mentioned in media as deleted have been covered under Alternative Academic Calendar of NCERT which is already in force for all the affiliated schools of the Board," it clarified.

On Wednesday, West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee tweeted: "Shocked to know that the central Government has dropped topics like citizenship, federalism, secularism and partisan in the name of reducing CBSE course during the COVID crisis."

"We strongly object to this and appeal the HRD Ministry to ensure these vital lessons aren't curtailed at any cost," Banerjee added.

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.