Siddaramaiah attacks BJP for fomenting communal divide in coastal Karnataka

Mangaluru, Feb 18: Notorious serial killer 'Cyanide' Mohan has been sentenced to life imprisonment by a court here for the murder of a 23-year old woman from Kasaragod district of Kerala in 2006.

That was the 19th of the 20 murder cases slapped against him.

Sixth additional district and sessions court judge Sayeedunnisa  said the life sentence will commence after he serves the sentence of imprisonment in the other cases.

Cyanide Mohan had 20 murder cases registered against him. He is accused of killed several women using cyanide after befriending and raping them.

He has been awarded the death sentence in five cases and life imprisonment in three. Two of the death penalties were later commuted to life imprisonment.

According to the charge sheet in the latest case, Mohan met the woman while she was going to work at a unit of CAMPCO here. After befriending and offering to marry her, on January 3 in 2006, he took her to Mysuru and stayed in a lodge near the bus stand.

Like in all other cases, the next morning, Mohan asked the woman to remove her ornaments. The two went to the KSRTC bus stand where he asked her to consume a pill convincing her that it was a contraceptive. However, it was laced with cyanide.

The woman, who consumed the pill in the washroom, collapsed and was declared brought dead at a hospital.

As in previous cases, Mohan went back to the lodge and left the place along with her ornaments.

He was arrested later from Bantwal in 2009, after which he admitted to killing 20 women.

The judge directed the District Legal Service Authority to take steps to award compensation to the woman's mother under the Karnataka victim compensation scheme.

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.

Bengaluru, Apr 23: The Karnataka government on Wednesday promulgated 'The Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Ordinance 2020' that provides the state with a power to seal borders, restrict essential services and punish those attacking public servants and damaging public property.

The Ordinance comes after violence in Padarayanapura when the police and BBMP officials were attacked while they tried to take some secondary contacts of a deceased COVID-19 patient into quarantine on April 19.

The Ordinance, which was promulgated after the Centre's guidelines in this regard, said, "The offender shall be liable for a penalty of twice the value of public or private property damaged as determined by the Deputy Commissioner after an inquiry."

It further said that if the penalty is not paid by the offender, then the amount shall be recovered under provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner can even attach the property of such offender in due course.

Also, abetment of offence would attract imprisonment of up to two years and a penalty of Rs 10,000 or both.

"No person shall commit or attempt to commit or instigate, incite or otherwise abet the commission of offence to cause loss or damage to any public or private property in any area when restrictions and regulations are in force to contain any epidemic disease," the Ordinance said.

Whoever contravenes such provision shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to Rs 50,000, it added.

On Wednesday, the Centre brought an Ordinance to end violence against health workers, making it a cognisable and non-bailable offence with imprisonment up to seven years for those found guilty.

"We have brought an Ordinance under which any attack on health workers will be a cognisable and non-bailable offence. In the case of grievous injuries, the accused can be sentenced from six months to seven years. They can be penalised from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 5 lakhs," Union Minister Prakash Javadekar briefed media after Cabinet meeting.

Javadekar said that an amendment will be made to the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and ordinance will be implemented.
This comes amid nationwide lockdown in the wake of COVID-19.