PM Modi meets Suu Kyi, discusses India-Myanmar relations

New Delhi, Jul 12: With the highest single-day spike of 28,637 new cases and 551 deaths being reported in the last 24 hours, India's COVID-19 count reached 8,49,553 on Sunday.

According to the Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry, this includes 2,92,258 active cases, and 5,34,621 cured and discharged or migrated patients. The toll due to the disease has reached 22,674 in the country.

Maharashtra with 2,46,600 cases continues to be the worst affected state by COVID-19 in the country. The state has 99,499 active cases while 1,36,985 patients have been cured and discharged so far. The death toll due to the disease now stands at 10,116.

Tamil Nadu with 1,34,226 cases, including 46,413 active ones, is the next worst affected in the country. While the number of cured and discharged patients is at 85,915 in the state, the toll due to the disease is at 1,898.

The national capital has recorded 1,10,921 confirmed cases so far. However, the number of active cases in Delhi is at 19,895 and 87,692 patients have been cured and discharged so far. With 3,334 deaths being reported due to COVID-19 in the city. 

New Delhi, Mar 7: Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar Azad has taunted Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati saying that she has lost her way. He also said that one will have to work for the larger interest of the society to bring about equality. Only the speeches cannot improve the condition of the Dalits, their participation in power must increase.

In an interview with media persons, Chandrashekhar said: "Members of minority community, Dalits and backward classes are being targeted in the country. Their rights are being taken away. Our workers want that they too should get equal share in political power. Keeping this in mind, we are going to form a new political party on March 15. Their (Dalits) issues will have to be raised. Mere speeches will not work for Bahujan society, one has to raise voice in their favour. They should get a share in power."

On the question that how he would find a foothold in view of large political base of the BSP, Chandrashekhar said, "We are not looking for an alternative. Look at the crores of Muslims, Dalits, members of backward community and minorities. We have to protect their interests. We have a large organisation in the state. Our Bharat Bandh was also successful".

On the question that with which party he will forge an alliance in 2022 after forming his party on March 15, Chandrashekhar said: "When we are forming our party then we don't need to go seeking alliance with anyone. Our party will be formed on the basis of some principles. Whoever will find it suitable will come close to us".

On meeting with Yogi government's former minister Om Prakash Rajbhar, he said that Rajbhar is not a controversial person. He is a big backward leader. He raises voice in favour of the backwards in the Assembly. He also supported us when I was in jail. We talked about how to stop the BJP and will take all necessary steps to prevent the BJP from coming back to power.

When asked why he had several run-ins with the police, Chandrashekhar said: "Ask this question to the police. Have I broken any law? Am I not a citizen of this country? There is no freedom of speech in the Yogi government. This is happening at the behest of the government. We are just opposing it".

Talking about the CAA, NRC and the NPR, he said: "We will not stage protest because the government does not want it. Any law which is wrong in our view will be opposed. This is a secular country. The CAA will divide the country. If there is anything against the Indian Constitution, we will raise our voice. Laws will not be allowed to be made on the basis of religion".

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.