4 accused in Hyderabad rape-murder case killed in encounter: Police

Bengaluru, Jan 19: The long-awaited discussions on cabinet expansion finally took place between BJP national president Amit Shah and the state party unit on Saturday, but they produced no result.

Latest indications are that new members will be appointed only after CM BS Yediyurappa returns from Davos, Switzerland, on January 25.

The party held a close-door party meeting at a top hotel in Hubballi. The subject of expanding the cabinet, which currently has 16 vacancies, featured in the talks.

Earlier, Yediyurappa reportedly had a one-on-one with Shah during their 45-minute flight from Bengaluru to Hubballi. He is said to have insisted on accommodating all 11 newly MLAs in the cabinet. These legislators were earlier a part of Congress and JD(S); they contested the December byelections on BJP tickets and won.

This apart, BJP sources said, Yediyurappa and Shah had a brief chat at a private event at Palace Grounds . Separately, Shah, who is the Union home minister, held meetings with Jagadish Shettar, Laxman Savadi and Prahlad Joshi, seeking their views on cabinet expansion.

Shah also wanted to get an idea of what people think about the Yediyurappa government’s performance.

Newly elected MLAs Ramesh Jarkiholi, BC Patil and Srimanth Patil greeted Shah. “We only met him to wish him; we didn’t discuss the cabinet issue. That’s something state BJP members will do,” said Hirekerur legislator BC Patil.

Saturday’s deliberations fail to break the stalemate over the cabinet appointments. There are clear differences in the camp about whether all Congress-JD(S) defectors should be made cabinet members, according to a senior minister attended one such meeting.

Shah reportedly wants only seven to eight newly elected MLAs to be made ministers; the rest of the spots should go to BJP loyalists. Yediyurappa disagrees with this position as he had promised all 13 turncoats places in the cabinet. Two lost in the bypolls.

Shah has now asked Yediyurappa to visit Delhi after returning from Davos to finalise the composition of the cabinet, according to the sources.

Yediyurappa will leave for Davos early on Sunday, while Shah will fly directly to Delhi from Hubballi.

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, Jul 19: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa convened a meeting with Private Medical College Hospitals on Saturday to assess COVID-19 management and directed them to provide 50 per cent of the beds, as promised, with effect from Sunday.

The chief minister said that private medical college hospitals need to cooperate as there is a sharp rise in COVID-10 cases in the city. He further said that it has come to the notice of the government that some institutes are denying treatment of COVID-19 as well as non-COVID patients.

The chief minister expressed his concerns over media reports stating several people died as they didn't get timely treatment due to denial from the hospitals. He said that Bengaluru should continue to lead the country as a role model in COVID-19 management.

During previous meetings, private medical colleges had agreed upon providing around 4,500 beds, which would make the total beds available in government and private medical colleges 6,500.

The chief minister expressed dismay over some colleges not providing the number of beds as promised and also about certain lacunae which were noticed by ministers during their visit.
During this emergency situation, we should show humanity. COVID and non-COVID patients shall not be denied treatment and the balance in healthcare system shall be maintained, he advised.

He assured them of all support, including providing doctors and nurses if need be.
The private medical colleges had assured to provide 50 per cent of beds and some colleges offered 80 per cent of the beds for COVID treatment.

Nodal officers have already been appointed to monitor the availability of beds in these medical colleges.

It was decided to issue a notice to Vaidehi Medical College for their absence in the meeting.