Drinking, cooking in open to attract Rs 2k-10k fine in Goa

Mumbai, Jan 19: After Kerala and Punjab, the Maha Vikas Agadi (MVA) government is also mulling over a resolution against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in Maharashtra Assembly.

Speaking to news agency, Congress spokesperson Raju Waghmare said: "Our senior party leader Balasaheb Thorat has also shared his stand on the CAA. Even Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray has said that we are against the CAA. As far as the resolution against CAA is concerned, our senior leaders of MVA will sit together and decide."

If this happens, then Maharashtra will be the third state to pass a resolution against CAA, which grants citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

Emphasising that CAA is 'unconstitutional,' senior lawyer and Congress leader Kapil Sibal has said that every state Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek CAA's withdrawal.

He added that it would be problematic to oppose the CAA if the law is declared to be 'constitutional' by the Supreme Court.

"I believe the CAA is unconstitutional. Every State Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek its withdrawal. When and if the law is declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it. The fight must go on!" Sibal tweeted.

Earlier speaking at the Kerala Literature Festival on Saturday, the Congress leader had said that constitutionally no state can say that it will not implement the amended Citizenship Act, as doing so will be "unconstitutional".

Kerala government has also approached the Supreme Court against the CAA following the passage of a resolution against it in the state Assembly.

Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh has also announced that the Congress state government is going to join Kerala in the Supreme Court in the case.

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.

New Delhi, Mar 6: Shares of YES Bank and State Bank of India came under huge selling pressure on Friday as developments unfolded regarding SBI picking stake in the private lender. Shares of the lender hit record low of Rs 5.55, plunging 85 per cent, and were trading below its previous low of Rs 8.16 hit on March 9, 2009.

SBI, on the other hand, slumped 11 per cent to Rs 257.35 on the BSE. The benchmark S&P BSE Sensex was trading with a cut of over 3 per cent at 37,251.37 level.

In the past three months, share price of the private lender has plunged 41 per cent, while the state-owned lender has slipped 14 per cent. In comparison, the S&P BSE Sensex has dipped 5.6 per cent till Thursday.

On Thursday, the Reserve Bank of India superseded the board of troubled private sector lender YES Bank and imposed a 30-day moratorium on it “in the absence of a credible revival plan” amid a “serious deterioration” in its financial health.

During the moratorium, which came into effect from 6 pm on Thursday, YES Bank will not be allowed to grant or renew any loans, and “incur any liability”, except for payment towards employees’ salaries, rent, taxes and legal expenses, among others.

This is the first time that a bank of this size will be put under a moratorium by the RBI.

“The financial position of YES Bank had undergone a steady decline “largely due to inability of the bank to raise capital to address potential loan losses and resultant downgrades, triggering invocation of bond covenants by investors, and withdrawal of deposits,” RBI said in a statement.

“After the moratorium, the next step will be to infuse to money and keep the bank afloat. So from shareholders’ point of view, the future is certainly hazy as the capital requirement is huge. The good part, however, is that the RBI has stepped in and depositors don't have to worry,” says Siddharth Purohit, a research analyst at SMC Securities.

Meanwhile, analysts at Nomura believe that placing the Bank under moratorium implies that equity value in the bank would be negligible, and that the chances of private capital participating in future capital raising plan are near zero.

"Any resolution for Yes Bank is more proposed from the perspective of deposit holders and systemic stability, and not from the perspective of Yes Bank equity investors or even perpetual bond holders," they wrote in a note dated March 6.

In another development, SBI’s Board Thursday gave in-principle approval to consider an “investment opportunity” in YES Bank, even as it said “no decision had yet been taken to pick up stake in the bank”.

According to a  report, highly-placed sources indicated a rescue plan involving SBI and Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) was being discussed and an announcement in this regard might be made soon.

“While the finer details of the deal are being worked out, it is anticipated that both SBI and LIC together will take a 51 per cent stake in the bank, with a one-year lock-in period,” the report said.

Most analysts believe it is a positive step for the Indian financial sector as the government has tried to avoid a repeat of IL&FS-like crisis.

“The move is a positive step for the financial sector as a whole. By this, the government has tried to avoid a repeat of IL&FS-like crisis and has saved the depositors,” said AK Prabhakar, Head of Research at IDBI Capital. While we know that YES Bank has a huge pile of bad loans, SBI is the only bank that has the capacity to absorb it, he added.

However, the valuation at which YES bank would be taken over remains a cause of concern.

Global brokerage firm JP Morgan Thursday cut its target price for YES Bank on Thursday to Rs 1 per share, taking into account the potential fall in the lender’s net worth due to stressed assets.

“We believe forced bailout investors will likely want the bank to be acquired at near-zero value to account for risks associated with the stress book and likely loss of deposits. We think the bank will need to be recapitalised at nominal equity value and could test dilution of additional tier 1 (AT1) capital. We remain underweight and cut our target price to Rs 1 as we believe net worth is largely impaired,” JP Morgan said in a note.

Global brokerage firm Nomura estimates a need of Rs 25,000-44,000 crore and adjusted for Rs 7,400 crore of current coverage, if the current stress of Rs 65,000-70,000 crore faces 70 per cent loss given default (LGD).

"It implies Rs 18,000-37,000 crore needed for provisioning against the current net worth of Rs 25,700 crore Also, to run as going concern, the bank would require over Rs 20,000 crore of CET-1 capital as well," the note said.

YES Bank has registered slippages of Rs 12,000 crore so far in FY20, while it has placed Rs 30,000 crore of loan assets under the watch list. Its deposits stood at Rs 2.09 trillion on September 30, 2019, while its advances totalled Rs 2.24 trillion. The bank has delayed publishing its December quarter results by a month to March 14.