US Dollar's dominance to slowly melt away over coming year

New Delhi, Mar 11: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of “destabilising” the elected Congress government in Madhya Pradesh.

Gandhi also said the PM may have “missed” noticing the 35 per cent crash in global oil prices and asked him to pass on the benefit to Indians by slashing petrol prices.

“Hey @PMOIndia, while you were busy destabilising an elected Congress Govt, you may have missed noticing the 35 per cent crash in global oil prices.

“Could you please pass on the benefit to Indians by slashing #petrol prices to under 60 per litre? Will help boost the stalled economy,” the former Congress chief said on twitter.

Congress' prominent youth leader Jyotiraditya Scindia quit the party on Tuesday and appeared set to join the BJP amid a rebellion in Madhya Pradesh by his supporters, pushing the 15-month-old Kamal Nath government to the brink of collapse.

On Tuesday morning, as much of India was celebrating Holi, Scindia met senior BJP leader and Union Home Minister Amit Shah, following which he called on Prime Minister Narendra Modi at his 7, Lok Kalyan Marg residence.

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, Jan 1: In the backdrop of huge losses borne by airlines, Aviation Minister Hardeep Singh Puri has said the government is concerned that more airlines will shut down if predatory pricing continues. "Some predatory pricing is taking place" in airfares, the minister told reporters on Tuesday. Mr Puri however ruled out any plan by the government to regulate airfares. The remarks come amid high competition in the country's aviation sector, struggling against high fuel prices and other operating costs.

"The interesting thing that we have observed is that on Delhi-Mumbai route 20 years ago, the average fare was Rs 5,100. Today, the average fare is Rs 4,600. Some predatory pricing is taking place. It means people are selling tickets below their cost," he said.

"One of our concerns is that if there is predatory pricing, then the airlines will stop functioning. This is not Air India's problem only. Jet Airways got shut down. Before that, it was Kingfisher airline," he said.

IndiGo and SpiceJet - two of the country's biggest airlines - reported losses of Rs 1,062 crore and Rs 463 crore respectively in the second quarter of 2019-20. Other airlines have also reported losses in the quarter that ended on September 30, 2019.

Asked if predatory pricing is the reason for the ill health of the airlines, the minister said, "No, there are many reasons... Predatory pricing is one of the factors. But the profitability of an airline is dependent on (a) number of things."

Asked if the trend of predatory pricing has come down after regular discussion with the airlines, he said, "Yes, absolutely."

"It is (a) constant battle. An ideal situation from an airline's point of view is that they grow and they are also able to charge more fares. What fares they charge is their business. Our advice to them is to charge realistic fares," he added. "It should not be too high. And it is not in your business interests if you are imposing predatory fares."

The minister also said that the government is not planning to regulate fares. "No regulation. It has to be done within deregulation system.... If I put a cap on fare, the airline will start charging that cap only... that cap will become the normal fare... So, within a deregulated structure, we have to bring about an equilibrium," the minister said.

"Government, periodically, at my level or at secretary''s level, we sit down with the main aircraft operators and tell them it is in your interest not to allow such practices which undermine the civil aviation sector."