BJP demands U T Khader's resignation over Ullal murder

Bengaluru, Jul 2: As many as 3,363 students from Covid-19 containment zones have appeared for SSLC examinations in different parts of Karnataka till yesterday. On the first day of exam, i.e., on June 25, only 998 students these zones had written the exam.

In the past few days the number of containment zones has increased across the state in general and Bengaluru in particular. In all, 32 students could not appear for the exam as they turned positive.

While on June 25, the number of students who were found unwell during the check up at exam centre was 201, it was 613 on Wednesday. Students who are sick and those from the containment zones take the exam in a different room.

The social science exam on Wednesday saw an attendance percentage of 97.96 (7.68 lakh). This was against 98.78% last year. There were 7.45 lakh fresh candidates, 20,000 private candidates and 593 from outside the state.

Five students in Yadgir district were given question papers based on the old syllabus for maths exam on June 27. Their answerscripts will be evaluated separately and action will be taken against the officials.

Malpractices assisted by schools by switching off CCTV cameras were reported in Ballari and Koppal. “We’ve completed all the core subjects. Now only languages are left. We’ll complete them too in a safe environment,” said S Suresh Kumar, primary and secondary education minister.

New Delhi, Mar 30: Congress MP Rajmohan Unnithan on Monday approached the Supreme Court seeking directions to open the Karnataka-Kerala border to allow movement of ambulances and other emergency vehicles for the transport of essential items to Kerala.

Unnithan, who is an MP From Kerala's Kasaragod constituency, filed a plea seeking direction to Karnataka to open the borders with Kerala and in particular Kasargod-Mangalore border at Talappadi.

The petition sought directions to Karnataka to allow the movement of ambulances, emergency vehicles, trucks and other vehicles carrying essential and non-essential items to Kerala. It also sought to stay the blockade imposed by Karnataka with its border states.

The plea also sought directions to Karnataka to register an FIR and constitute a special investigation team (SIT) under the supervision of this court to enquire against the concerned authorities including the police officials whose action led to the death of two citizens.

It said that the imposition of such a blockade at a time when the supply of commodities is itself hit hard and when a medical emergency has plagued the entire country is a clear violation of Articles 21 and 19(d) of the Constitution.

"This blockade has also resulted in cutting off the essential lifeline of National Highways and State Highways and major District Roads leading to the State of Kerala which has resulted in the shortage of supply of essential and non-essential items to the State of Kerala leading to shortage supply of food and medical supplies," the plea said.

"This ill-planned and dangerous blockade has claimed the life of a 70-year-old woman who was denied entry into Karnataka even for the purpose of urgent medical treatment which was only available in the medical hub of Mangalore. This is a clear case of violation of the right to life with dignity by the state as citizens are made to die on the roads because of the action of the state which is in total disregard to Article 21," it added.

This comes as the country is under a 21-day lockdown to prevent the spread of coronavirus, which according to the Ministry of Health and Family Affairs has claimed the lives of 29 people and infected a total of 1071 people as on Monday morning.

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.