Aishwarya Rai is my mom, she should live with me in Mangaluru: 30-year-old man

Los Angeles, Mar 6: Filmmaker-writer Taika Waititi is set to direct two animated series based on Roald Dahl's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" for Netflix.

Waititi, who won an Academy Award in February for his adapted screenplay, "Jojo Rabbit", will also serve as the writer and producer on the animated series.

According to Deadline, the first series will be based on the world of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", while the second will be an original take on the Oompa-Loompa characters from the book.

The Oompa-Loompas are little humans who were preyed upon in Loompaland before Wonka invited them to work at his chocolate factory. They are paid in cocoa beans and love practical jokes and singing songs.

Netflix said the animation series would "retain the quintessential spirit and tone of the original story while building out the world and characters far beyond the pages of the Dahl book for the very first time."

The series will follow in the footsteps of Gene Wilder's 1971 portrayal of Willy Wonka and Johnny Depp's 2005 interpretation.

Newsroom, Feb 7: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent statement that there is no detention camp in India is no more a lie. That doesn’t mean that there are no detention camps in the country, but the name of the camps have changed. 

In December, at a mega rally at Ramlila Maidan, meant to launch the BJP's campaign for the assembly elections in Delhi, Mr Modi had stated: “The rumour of detention centres being spread by the Congress and urban Naxals is totally false. This is being done with a bad intention to destroy the country, it’s filled with evil motives; this is a lie, lie, lie.” He had further claimed: “Neither are any of the country’s Muslims being sent to detention centres nor is there any detention centre in India”

In reality there are at least six detention camps in jails in Assam to house foreigners found staying in India illegally. A month prior to PM’s statement, Union minister of the state for home affairs Nityanand Rai had revealed that the six camps in Assam housed 1,043 foreigners — 1,025 Bangladeshis and 18 Myanmarese. Apart from these, at least ten new detention centres are coming up.

Outside Assam too, the Maharashtra government, under the then chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, had identified land for the state’s first detention centre for illegal immigrants.

Besides, in a case relating to illegal immigrants in Karnataka High Court in November this year, the Centre had told the court that it had written to all state governments in 2014 and sent a follow-up letter in 2018 to have detention centres to house foreign nationals illegally staying in India.

Karnataka’s first detention centre, apparently meant to lodge illegal immigrants and migrants overstaying in the country, is already open in Sondekoppa village on the outskirts of Bengaluru. The facility with several rooms, a kitchen and toilets has been kept ready on the directions of the government. 

Meanwhile, Union Minister of state for home Nityanand Rai has told the Lok Sabha that the name "detention centre" has now been changed to "holding centre".

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.