21 schoolkids among nearly 250 dead in powerful Mexico quake

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.

Patna, Jan 12: Prashant Kishor, national vice-president of the Janata Dal (United), a key ally of the BJP-led NDA, has thanked Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi and former AICC chief Rahul Gandhi for their support in opposing CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) and NRC (National Register of Citizens).

Perceived as one of the closest associates of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, who is also the party’s national president, PK (as Prashant is fondly called) also assured the two top Congress leaders that the contentious legislation would not be implemented in Bihar where JD (U) is ruling the State with the support of the BJP.

“I join my voice with all to thank #Congress leadership for their formal and unequivocal rejection of #CAA_NRC. Both @rahulgandhi and @priyankagandhi deserve special thanks for their efforts on this count….also would like to reassure to all – CAA/NRC won’t be implemented in Bihar,” tweeted PK on Sunday.

The development assumes significance as a day back, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) meeting, chaired by Sonia Gandhi, had strongly opposed CAA/NRC/NPR as it was aimed at “sinister design of the present regime to divide Indian people into religious lines.”

The latest tweet by PK is also being seen as a rebuff to the BJP, which again recently reiterated that “the BJP should project its own chief ministerial candidate during the 2020 Bihar Assembly elections.”

The JD (U) had taken umbrage over such provocative statements by BJP leaders and asked the saffron camp to rein in its ‘loudmouths’ as BJP chief Amit Shah had already made it clear that the next Assembly polls in Bihar would be fought under the leadership of Nitish.

Of late, PK has been quite vocal about his opposition to the Centre’s policies, particularly the contentious issues of NRC and CAA. Besides, he even dubbed senior BJP leader Sushil Modi as the man who became Bihar’s Deputy Chief Minister due to ‘circumstances’ as the BJP was decisively decimated during the 2015 Assembly elections.

Nitish never reprimanded PK for his jibe against Modi, thereby giving rise to speculations whether Bihar was again heading for a political churning ahead of Assembly polls slated for October this year.

Jan 21: Indian policymakers may make it easier for companies to tap foreign funding, as a prolonged cash squeeze makes it tough for firms to borrow at home.

Investors are speculating about potential steps Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman could unveil when she presents the nation’s budget on Feb. 1. These measures may include freeing up firms to borrow at higher rates and offering tax breaks to global funds.

“The government will need to relax local rules to make it easier for Indian companies to raise debt overseas and tide over the funding crunch in the onshore market,” said Raj Kothari, London-based head of trading at Jay Capital Ltd. “At the same time, they need to ensure that the borrowers tapping offshore markets abide with stricter corporate governance so as to avoid further defaults.”

A prolonged crisis in India’s shadow bank sector and a pile of bad loans at traditional lenders is making it expensive for Indian companies, other than the best-rated firms, to access funding. The government has tried a series of measures to spur domestic credit, including providing so-called credit enhancement and allowing tiny firms to restructure debt.

Here are some steps Sitharaman may consider to spur foreign borrowing:

• She could raise the cap of 450 basis points above Libor, which limits overall foreign debt costs for Indian companies

• This could help lower-rated firms sell bonds abroad. Indian companies rated BBB currently borrow at more than 10%, about 3.8 percentage points more than their top-rated peers;

• Sitharaman could waive the withholding tax foreign investors need to pay on holdings of rupee-denominated debt sold by Indian companies abroad

• The waiver was offered between September 2018 to March 2019, but wasn’t extended as the highest global interest rates since the financial crisis deterred Indian borrowers. Since then, the three-month Libor has dropped by about 1 percentage point

• She could permit Indian property developers and housing finance lenders to sell overseas bonds for reasons beyond affordable housing projects

• New funding lines to the real estate sector, arguably ground zero of India’s economic slowdown, could help kickstart consumption and investment as the industry is the nation’s biggest job-creator.