I will be watching you: Muslim passenger kicked off plane in US

Bengaluru, Jul 21: The total number of Covid-19 cases in Karnataka breached the 70,000 mark on Tuesday as the state reported 3,649 fresh infections, while 61 fatalities took the death toll to 1,464, the health department said.

The day also saw 1,664 patients getting discharged after recovery. Out of 3,649 fresh cases reported on Tuesday, a whopping 1,714 were from Bengaluru urban alone. As of July 21 evening, cumulatively 71,069 Covid-19 cases have been confirmed in Karnataka, which includes 1,464 deaths and 25,459 discharges, the health department said in its bulletin.

It said that out of the 44,140 active cases, 43,557 patients are in isolation at designated hospitals and are stable, while 583 are in Intensive Care Units.

Twenty-two out of 61 deaths reported on Tuesday are from Bengaluru urban, followed by five each from Dakshina Kannada, Mysuru and Dharwad, four each from Kolar and Belagavi, three each from Hassan, Tumakuru and Haveri, Bidar 2, and one each from Chikkaballapura, Chikkamagaluru, Chamarajanagara, Gadag and Vijayapura.

Most of the deceased either had a history of Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI) or Influenza-like illness (ILI). Out of 3,649 cases tested positive on Tuesday, contacts of the large number of the cases are still under tracing.

Among the districts where new cases were reported, Bengaluru urban accounted for 1,714, Ballari 193, Dakshina Kannada 149, Mysuru 135, Yadgir 117, Uttara Kannada 109, Hassan 107, Kolar 103, followed by others.

Bengaluru urban district topped the list of positive cases, with 34,943 infections, followed by Dakshina Kannada 3,829 and Kalaburagi 2,966. Among discharges Bengaluru urban was on top with 7,476 discharges, followed by Kalabuagi 1,834 and Udupi 1,731.

A total of 10,64,734 samples were tested so far, out of which 43,904 were tested on Tuesday alone, the bulletin said. It said that 19,328 of the 43,904 samples tested today were rapid antigen tests.

Bengaluru, Feb 29: Dreaded underworld don Ravi Poojary's lawyer Dilraj has allegedly been kept out of hearing distance and as a mute spectator during interrogation by the police.

"The lawyer is a mute spectator out of hearing distance from the interrogation. He is not privy to what police ask Pujari," a source told media.

As directed by the court and requested by Poojary, Dilraj is allowed to be present near the interrogation for him to consult on legal issues, but the cops have made sure that he does not hear anything for fear of leaking information.

The court has also ordered the interrogation to be video graphed, which the police are carrying out.

Police sources said that Ravi Poojary is relaxed and cool during the multi-lingual interrogation.

"He is cool, giving frank replies. Poojary is exhibiting confidence in whatever he is telling. Maybe confidently lying, police are not new to him," said the source.

According to source, the gangster knows how to handle police, with sufficient knowledge to reveal how much he wants to, when to stop, when to talk, when to mislead and plant false information.

"Poojary is being interrogated in his mother tongue Kannada, Hindi and English. He is fluent in English," the source said.

However, the source denied speculation gaining currency that Poojary requested police not to send him to Mumbai fearing of being eliminated by the henchmen of dreaded underworld dons Dawood Ibrahim and Chota Rajan.

"Nothing of that sort happened. It doesn't work like that. He has been captured after 25 years, and he is not a king to choose. Wherever the law takes him, he will go there," said the source.

Rajan is serving a life sentence inside a high security cell in Delhi's Tihar jail.

Currently, the probe is focused on Tilknagar Shabnam Developers double murder shootout case. Police are discovering information, verifying it with respect to evidence and building the case.

Taking regular breaks, police are interrogating Poojary from morning till evening.

Of the over 200 cases against Poojary in the southern state, 39 are in Bengaluru, 36 at Mangaluru, 11 in Udupi on the state's west coast and one each at Mysuru, Hubballi-Dharwad, Kolar and Shivamogga in Malnad.

The other cases are in Mumbai (49) and in Gujarat (75) pertaining to extortion, kidnapping, ransom demand and murder threats.

Poojary also extorted huge amounts from popular Bollywood stars and realtors. He was also involved in an attempt to murder case, aimed at killing a prominent lawyer of Mumbai.

A four-member Karnataka police team led by Pandey brought the 52-year-old underworld don to Bengaluru from Dakar in Senegal via Paris in an Air France scheduled flight during the wee hours and kept him at an interrogation centre in the city's south-east suburb.

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.