Prevent conversion of Hindus into Islam in Sullia: BJP tells police

Bengaluru, Jun 18: The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) nominated Prathap Simha Nayak, M.T.B. Nagaraj, R. Shankar and Sunil Valyapure to contest in the June 29 biennial elections for 4 of the 7 Karnataka legislative Council seats, an official said.

"Our high command selected 3 of the 4 candidates the state core committee recommended on Tuesday, excluding H.R. Vishwanath, a former Janata Dal-Secular (JD-S) rebel, who lost in the December 5 Assembly by-elections from Hunsur in Mysuru district on a BJP ticket," a party official said.

Nagaraj, a former Congress rebel, who also lost in the Assembly by-election from Hoskote in Bengaluru Rural district on a BJP ticket, was the state housing minister in the 14-month-old JD-S-Congress coalition government, which fell on July 23, 2019 after 17 of their rebels resigned then.

Shankar, who was an Independent and a minister in the former coalition government, was not given the BJP ticket to contest in the December Assembly bypolls though he too resigned from the Ranebennur assembly seat in Haveri district, about 340km northwest of Bengaluru, along with former Congress and JD-S rebels.

Valyapure is the party's grass-root leader from Chincholi in Gulbarga district in the state's northern region, about 586km from Bengaluru.

Valyapure extensively campaigned in the May 2019 general elections and ensured the victory of BJP candidate Umesh Yadav from the reserved Gulbarga Lok Sabha seat, defeating Congress senior leader Mallikarjun Kharge.

Nayak is also the party's grassroot cadre who rose from the ranks to become its Dakshina Kannada district president in the state's coastal region.

As the ruling party has 116 legislators in the 225-member Assembly, all its 4 candidates will need 28 votes each to win the contest.

Of the 7 outgoing Council members, 5 are from the Congress and one each from the Janata Dal-Secular (JD-S) and an Independent.

With 68 lawmakers, the Congress will be able to retain 2 seats and the JD-S one as it has only 34 legislators in the lower house.

The Congress has nominated its outgoing Rajya Sabha member B.K. Hariprasad and outgoing Council member Naseer Ahmed to contest for 2 Council seats.

Of the 75-member Council, the opposition Congress has 37, BJP 19, JD-S 16, two Independents and one Chairman.

University of Oxford researchers have claimed that a cheap and widely available drug called dexamethasone can help save the lives of patients who are seriously ill with coronavirus.

Scientists working on the Recovery Trial found the drug could help patients on ventilators and oxygen, but had no effect on those who did not need help breathing.

“Based on these results, one death would be prevented by treatment of around eight ventilated patients or around 25 patients requiring oxygen alone,” researchers said in a statement.

Matt Hancock, the health secretary, tweeted: “This global first exemplifies the power of science.”

“I’m absolutely delighted that today we can announce the first successful clinical trial for a treatment for Covid-19,” Mr Hancock said.

Recovery Trial experts said a randomised group of 2,104 patients was given 6mg of dexamethasone per day for 10 days, while another group of 4,321 were given normal treatment.

Dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-fifth in patients on oxygen feeds and by one-third in those who needed a ventilator to breathe, preliminary results showed.

Mr Hancock added: “This is a huge step forward and it’s because we’ve backed the science.”

Martin Landray, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, and one of the trial’s chief investigators, said in a statement: “These preliminary results from the Recovery Trial are very clear – dexamethasone reduces the risk of death among patients with severe respiratory complications.

“Covid-19 is a global disease – it is fantastic that the first treatment demonstrated to reduce mortality is one that is instantly available and affordable worldwide.”

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.