Rapes can't be prevented, don't create 'hue and cry', says Union Minister

New Delhi, May 29: In a powerful display of inter community solidarity, a team of Sikh volunteers visited Delhi's Jama Masjid and sanitized the 17th century monument.

As the national capital battled coronavirus, the historic Jama Masjid is closed for congregational prayers. However, the team of Sikh volunteers effectively sanitized the monument to ensure it is safe for the caretakers and visitors.

The volunteers affiliated with United Sikhs organization also met Naib Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid Syed Shaban Bukhari during the visit. The latter thanked the team for the humanitarian gesture and underlined the need for all sections of humanity to unite in the face of this crisis.

"The Sikh community has always displayed exemplary commitment to humanity and we are thankful to the United Sikhs' team for their initiative. This enormous crisis facing the human race can be fought off only if all communities, nations and people unite and fight it together. In recent weeks we have seen heart wrenching images of misery in the country as thousands of migrant workers return to their villages. At the same time we have also seen positive stories of different people uniting to help and feed them. We hope that together we will overcome this crisis," said Syed Shaban Bukhari, Naib Shahi Imam, Jama Masjid, Delhi.

Shaban Bukhari has also advised Muslims across the country to strictly avoid congregational prayers this Eid and pray at homes. He is young leader, who really believes in secularism. For him, humanity and kindness come first.

Jodhpur, Jun 5: A video has gone viral on social media showing what could be called Jodhpur's George Floyd moment with a twist, showing cops throwing a person on the ground and pressing his neck with their knees for roaming around without a mask.

However, unlike the unfortunate incident in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the cops in Jodhpur reportedly acted after the person, said to be mentally challenged, turned violent after being confronted by the police.

Dumb TV media is playing the initial part of this video as 'India's George Flyod moment'. Doesn't matter to them that the same video shows the man beating the cops back badly pic.twitter.com/vGSaON6oii

— Swati Goel Sharma (@swati_gs) June 5, 2020

George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, died after being arrested by the police outside a shop in Minneapolis in the US on May 25. Footage showed a white officer, Derek Chauvin, kneeling on Floyd's neck for several minutes while he was pinned to the floor. He was pronounced dead later in the hospital, triggering widespread protests across the US.

However, in the Jodhpur incident, the man, identifed as Mukesh Kumar Prajapat, did not die but instead started fighting with the policemen.

Jodhpur police officers confirmed that the video was shot in the city on Thursday after the police wanted to issue a challan against the man for roaming on the streets without wearing a mask before he started manhandling the police.

The video shows a cop pressing his neck with his knee while two other cops held the young man's legs. A huge crowd gathered when the scuffle broke out.

Meanwhile, the SHO of Dev Nagar police station, Somkaran, said that the police were issuing a challan to Prajapat when he attacked them and tore their uniform. An FIR has been lodged against Prajapat on a complaint lodged by the Pratap Nagar police station. He will be produced in the court later in the day.

Prajapat is said to be mentally challenged and had damaged his father's eye earlier for which a case was registered against him, the poice said. Action is being initiated against Prajapat under the Epidemic Act, they 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.