3-month-old baby choked to death while being fed Cerelac

In the wake of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) UN High Commissioner, Michele Bachelet, has filed an intervention in the Supreme Court petition challenging the constitutionality of the Citizenship Amendment Act, as she is critical of CAA. Responding to her, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jai Shanker strongly rebutted her criticism, saying that the body (UNHCR) has been wrong and is blind to the problem of cross border terrorism. The issue on hand is the possibility of scores of people, mainly Muslims, being declared as stateless. The problem at hand is the massive exercise of going through the responses/documents from over 120 crore of Indian population and screening documents, which as seen in Assam, yield result which are far from truthful or necessary.

The issue of CAA has been extensively debated and despite heavy critique of the same by large number of groups and despite the biggest mass opposition ever to any move in Independent India, the Government is determined on going ahead with an exercise which is reminiscent of the dreaded regimes which are sectarian and heartless to its citizens, which have indulged in extinction of large mass of people on grounds of citizenship, race etc. The Foreign minister’s assertion is that it is a matter internal to India, where India’s sovereignty is all that matters! As far as sovereignty is concerned we should be clear that in current times any sovereign power has to consider the need to uphold the citizenship as per the principle of non-discrimination which is stipulated in Art.26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political (ICCPR) rights.

Can such policies, which affect large number of people and are likely to affect their citizenship be purely regarded as ‘internal’? With the World turning into a global village, some global norms have been formulated during last few decades. The norms relate to Human rights and migrations have been codified. India is also signatory to many such covenants in including ICCPR, which deals with the norms for dealing with refugees from other countries. One is not talking of Chicago speech of Swami Vivekanand, which said that India’s greatness has been in giving shelter to people from different parts of the World; one is also not talking of the Tattariaya Upanishad’s ‘Atithi Devovhav’ or ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam’ from Mahaupanishad today.

What are being talked about are the values and opinions of organizations which want to ensure to preserve of Human rights of all people Worldwide. In this matter India is calling United Nations body as ‘foreign party’; having no locus standi in the case as it pertains to India’s sovereignty. The truth is that since various countries are signatories to UN covenants, UN bodies have been monitoring the moves of different states and intervening at legal level as Amicus (Friend of the Court) to the courts in different countries and different global bodies. Just to mention some of these, UN and High Commissioner for Human Rights has often submitted amicus briefs in different judicial platforms. Some examples are their intervention in US Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, International Criminal Court, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. These are meant to help the Courts in areas where UN bodies have expertise.

 Expertise on this has been jointly formulated by various nations. These interventions also remind the nations as to what global norms have been evolved and what are the obligations of individual states to the values which have evolved over a period of time. Arvind Narrain draws our attention to the fact that, “commission has intervened in the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving Spain and Italy to underscore the principle of non-refoulement, which bars compulsory expulsion of illegal migrants… Similarly, the UN has intervened in the International Criminal Court in a case against the Central African Republic to explicate on the international jurisprudence on rape as a war crime.”

From time to time organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been monitoring the status of Human rights of different countries. This puts those countries in uncomfortable situation and is not welcome by those establishments. How should this contradiction between ‘internal matter’, ‘sovereignty’ and the norms for Human rights be resolved? This is a tough question at the time when the freedom indices and democratic ethos are sliding downwards all over the world. In India too has slid down on the scale of these norms.

In India we can look at the intervention of UN body from the angle of equality and non discrimination. Democratic spirit should encourage us to have a rethink on the matters which have been decided by the state. In the face of the greatest mass movement of Shaheen bagh, the state does need to look inwards and give a thought to international morality, the spirit of global family to state the least.

The popular perception is that when Christians were being persecuted in Kandhmal the global Christian community’s voice was not strong enough. Currently in the face of Delhi carnage many a Muslim majority countries have spoken. While Mr. Modi claims that his good relations with Muslim countries are a matter of heartburn to the parties like Congress, he needs to relook at his self gloating. Currently Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia and many Muslim majority countries have spoken against what Modi regime is unleashing in India. Bangladesh, our neighbor, has also seen various protests against the plight of Muslims in India. More than the ‘internal matter’ etc. what needs to be thought out is the moral aspect of the whole issue. We pride ourselves in treading the path of morality. What does that say in present context when while large section of local media is servile to the state, section of global media has strongly brought forward what is happening to minorities in India.   

The hope is that Indian Government wakes up to its International obligations, to the worsening of India’s image in the World due to CAA and the horrific violence witnessed in Delhi.

Bengaluru, Jun 29: A 99-year-old woman has successfully recovered from coronavirus in Bengaluru, leaving the medical fraternity and her family elated.

The woman had contracted the pathogen after coming in contact with her grandson and was hospitalised on her 99th birthday on June 18.

The woman was taken to the government Victoria Hospital along with her 70-year-old son, daughter-in-law and grandson.

"While we three developed symptoms like cold, cough and fever, my mother remained asymptomatic," the woman's son said.

The family members are still wondering how they got infected by the virus as all except the woman's grandson, were confined to their home most of the time.

Her 29-year-old grandson was the only one who went out to buy groceries.

Initially, the family approached a private hospital nearby for treatment, but they refused to accept COVID-19 patients.

Left with no option, the family got admitted to the Victoria hospital.

"We had reservations about Victoria hospital, but it turned out be a good one.

We did not spend a penny since the day we were admitted and my mother and son fully recovered," the woman's son said.

According to Dr Asima Banu, nodal officer of the Trauma Care Centre at the Victoria hospital, the woman was reluctant to get treatment at the hospital.

"With moral support from doctors and nurses at the Trauma Care Centre, she recovered very fast. She is always positive in life," the doctor said.

Bengaluru, May 20: Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) had to confront an unprecedented situation as there was a commotion at bus stands in various parts of the state due to the mad rush of passengers.

Deputy Chief Minister Laxman Savadi, who is in charge of the transport department, admitted that there were some shortcomings in the arrangements. He, however, was confident that things would improve from Wednesday.

As against the dearth of passengers in the bus stands in Bengaluru a day ago, Wednesday witnessed an overwhelming crowd blaming BMTC authorities for not providing enough buses for all the destinations on time.

Some of the employees who were asked to report to duty before certain time were facing difficulty in reaching the office in the absence of bus despite having daily pass and arriving at the stand well in advance.

Authorities were finding it difficult to convince the public as a bus could ferry only 35 passengers at a time which was way less than the demand.