28-year-old pregnant Kerala nurse stabbed to death in Oman

Bengaluru, Jan 15: The on-going process to select a new Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president is likely to drag on for few more days with former CM and opposition leader Siddaramaiah making a strong pitch for former minister MB Patil over DK Shivakumar for the post.

Siddaramaiah, who met AICC president Sonia Gandhi and other senior Congress leaders in New Delhi on Tuesday, reportedly argued in favour of Patil, saying his elevation would help the party win Lingayats to the fold.

“Yediyurappa, the undisputed leader of the Lingayat community, is almost at the end of his career and it is an opportunity for the Congress to gain the confidence of the community. Being a leader from North Karnataka, Patil fits the bill perfectly,” Siddaramaiah reportedly told Sonia.

Siddaramaiah is said to be backing Patil over Shivakumar as he is worried about losing his hold over the state unit, given Shivakumar’s popularity. While Sonia did give the former CM a patient hearing, she is said to have told him that he should obey and cooperate with whatever decision high command takes.

The high command is looking to evolve consensus on the new state president. “Sonia’s meeting with Siddaramaiah is part of this exercise. She wants to keep everybody in the loop,” said a functionary.

Siddaramaiah also met senior leaders Ahmed Patel and AK Anthony. He is expected to meet former AICC president Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday.

However, some including Mallikarjun Kharge and Shamanur Shivashankarappa have expressed reservations against Patil’s elevation, pointing to his role in the controversial separate Lingayat religion issue which dented the Congress’ prospects in the 2018 assembly polls.

“He has a very bad name among Lingayats and making him president would prove counter-productive. Moreover, it is difficult to win back Lingayats as long as Yediyurappa is active in politics,” said a senior Congress leader.

Another functionary said a majority of state functionaries — and even some in the high command — favour Shivakumar as he is not only “resourceful”, but also has momentum. “With HD Deve Gowda and HD Kumaraswamy losing popularity among Vokkaligas, the possibility of the community backing Shivakumar is high. This may land him the top job,” the functionary said.

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, Feb 4: Even as anti-NRC protests continue to rage across the country, the Lucknow University has queered the pitch by demanding citizenship proof from RTI applicants.

The Lucknow University (LU) refused to provide the information sought by the people who filed the Right to Information (RTI) unless they furnished the proof that they were Indian citizens.

Alok Chantia, one of the RTI applicants who was refused information by the varsity, said that he had lodged a complaint with the vice-chancellor of the varsity but even then he could not get the desired information.

"It is shocking how the university has twisted the RTI law as per its whims and fancy. It does not have any authority to do so," said the RTI applicant.

Chantia, also a faculty member at a degree college here, had sought details of appointment of teachers for self-financed courses and their pay scale.

"It is possible that some applicants who may not be familiar with the provisions of the RTI, may have furnished proof of their citizenship to the varsity to get the information but that cannot become a rule," he pointed out.

When contacted, university officials admitted that such a practice had been going on in the varsity for the past few years.

"This practice started during the tenure of the former vice-chancellor S.P. Singh and still continues," said a senior varsity official.