RSS worker’s murder: Cops illegally detaining innocent Muslims, says SDPI

Bengaluru, May 17: Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister and Transport Minister Laxman Savadi on Sunday wrote to Union Minister Nitin Gadkari requesting to issue new lockdown guidelines including permission to operate public transport and said the lockdown has caused a financial loss of Rs 16,00 crore to all four Karnataka Transport Undertakings.

In view of these problems, the state Transport Minister requested Gadkari to permit the deployment of Non-AC buses on scheduled routes to ensure the adequacy of services.

The four State Transport Undertakings (STUs) in Karnataka which are providing bus-based public transport services within the state and to the neighbouring states are Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC), North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NEKRTC) and Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC).

"KSRTC, NWKRTC and NEKRTC operate buses for mofussil services i.e. Interdistrict, intradistrict and interstate, whereas BMTC operates only in urban and suburban areas in the city of Bengaluru. The four STUs put together hold a fleet of about 24,900 buses including 1,520 air-conditioned buses and operate about 71.00 lakh km. per day and carries about 98.00 lakh passengers every single day," Savadi outlined in the letter.

The Minister said due to the COVID-19 outbreak and the lockdown that ensued have brought regular bus operations and functioning to a grinding halt.

"This has caused a devastating impact on the operations of all the four STUs due to the combination of lack of revenue and continuing fixed costs such as salaries and pensions to staff, payables against existing loans etc. It has been estimated that the lockdown has caused a financial loss of INR 1,600/- crore to these four STUs," he added.

Savadi said even after post-COVID lockdown, operations and revenues won't reach its previous demand& supply patterns in the next six to eight months due to reduced economic activity and users' perceived risk of contacting COVID in public transport.

In addition to that, "occupancy should be allowed up to seating capacity (without standees). This is essential to meet minimal demand," he said in the letter.

"The crew should wear facemask and hand gloves. The crew with health issues should not be deployed. The face masks should be made mandatory for all the passengers. Only asymptomatic persons should be allowed to travel in public transport. The Government of India may consider staggering working hours for various sectors to reduce peak hour traffic demand," the minister listed out these recommendations in the letter.

Savadi said that with social distancing norm of reduced seating capacity in public transport, it will not be possible to provide transport facility to all the daily passengers. This will create demand for more buses, which cannot be met.

"Restrictions on public transport will lead to passenger commute by overcrowding in smaller vehicles like cars, maxi cabs, goods tempos etc. which will adversely affect preventive measures," he added.

Therefore, Savadi requested Union Minister to look into the above matter and issue fresh guidelines to all the states / UT's.

Kundapur, Apr 10: Police have lodged a case against Nagaraj Mogaveera, 28, a resident of Karwadi Saukur in Kundapur, for sharing a communal hatred and sensitive post over Facebook.

On his Facebook page, he wrote, "1,500 persons went to Delhi mosque from Karnataka. Each person's test costs Rs 4,500 which becomes expenditure of Rs 67,50,000 in all. If they be encountered, each bullet costs Rs. 63 and the total expenditure will be Rs 94,500."

According to the complaint filed by Mukhtar Ahmad of the Janata Colony of Kundapur Karwadi village on Friday, the police have booked a case under the IPC Section 1860, 295A, 505 (2) and launched the investigation.

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.