NITK student drowns in sea after photo session at St Mary's Island

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.

Lucknow, Jul 20: Dr Azizuddin Sheikh, who was fighting COVID-19 as a front line worker, passed away after contracting coronavirus in Uttar Pradesh. He is survived by a wife and three small children. 

40-year-old Dr Azizuddin, who hailed from Rajasthan, was serving as a paediatrician at Avanti Bai Hospital and Duffein Hospital, Lucknow for past few years. He had also worked in the Middle Eastern countries. 

When a large number of doctors preferred to stay home following the covid-19 outbreak, Dr Azizudin was working 16 to 17 hours battling the pandemic. 

According to sources, he tested positive for the covid-19 last month. “After the reports came positive, he had to call the concerned authorities many times to take him to the hospital,” recalled his family members.

He was first admitted to Lok Bandhu Hospital and was later shifted to KGMU after his condition deteriorated. Later he was taken to SGPGIMS.
 
“Despite following all the guidelines and taking every precaution while treating coronavirus patients, he tested positive for the covid-19. It’s a shock for all of us,” he said.

He used to console his family members and instill confidence among them, said one of his relatives. 

A local newspaper quoted his friends as saying that he was very dedicated in serving people that he used to take minimal possible fees from his patients. When the family asked him to increase consultation fees his reply would be, “They are poor people, how will they afford”?

After his death, one of his patients Alok Singh wrote about an incident. “When I asked doctor Sahib why he charges so less, his answer was I have to answer Allah. The truth that he has left us will always be the reason for our grief.”

Bengaluru, Feb 4: Karnataka High Court on Monday reserved order on plea, seeking cancellation of bail granted to Nithyananda for skipping the trial and fleeing the country.

After hearing the arguments, the court has reserved the matter for further orders which will be pronounced on February 5.

The plea, which was filed in the high court on January 23, was heard by Justice John Michael Cunha.

The counsel for the complainant Lenin put forth arguments that the self-styled godman Swami Nithyananda had fled the country to escape the trial. "Nityananda has been claiming to be in India in his exemption petitions filed before the trial court but during that time he sought asylum in Ecuador and is having a second passport," said Lenin.

The prosecutor informed the court that they do not need his presence for the trial at this time.

Nithyananda, accused of rape and child abuse, has been absconding since November 2018.

In December 2019, the Ministry of External Affairs said that the passport of Nithyananda was cancelled and a fresh application of the same was denied as he did not get the requisite clearance from police and several criminal cases have been lodged against him.

Police in Ahmedabad had arrested two woman administrators of the ashram, allegedly owned by Nithyananda, and freed two boys who were held captive there.

Two of his disciples, Pranpriya and Priyatattva, were arrested on the basis of a complaint filed by one Janardhan Sharma who alleged that his daughter was held captive in Nithyananda's ashram.

The police took the two women to Nithyananda's ashram in Hathiajan for an investigation and seized laptops, mobile phones among other things.