BJP using Siddaganga seer for political gains by promising Bharat Ratna: Mate Mahadevi

Bengaluru, May 1: The Karnataka government on Friday issued a show cause notice to an IAS officer over his recent tweet about coronavirus-cured Tablighi Jamaat members donating plasma for treatment of other patients.

The officer, Mohammad Mohsin, was in the news last year after the Election Commission suspended him for trying to inspect Prime Minister Narendra Modi's helicopter during his visit to Odisha in April. He was deployed as a poll observer.

"More than 300 Tablighi Heroes are donating their plasma to serve the country in New Delhi only. What about? #Godi Media? They will not show the works of humanity done by these heroes," Mohsin said in a tweet on April 27.

A 1996 batch IAS officer from Karnataka cadre hailing from Bihar, Mohsin is currently serving as a secretary in the Backward Class Welfare Department.

The state government said the show cause notice has been issued to the officer in connection with his tweet.

"The adverse coverage this tweet has got in the media has been taken note of seriously by the government, given the serious nature of COVID-19 and the sensitivities involved," the notice, which was accessed by PTI, stated.

The government has sought a written explanation from the officer within five days for violating the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

It warned of action against Mohsin as per the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 if he fails to submit his reply before the deadline.

"The Karnataka government has made it clear that it would not hesitate to act even against powerful functionaries if their actions are damaging to the harmony in the state at a time when all are united in fighting COVID-19," a senior state bureaucrat said.

The Tablighi Jamaat, an Islamic missionary group, shot into the limelight early this year after thousands of its members who attended a congregation in south Delhi's Nizamuddin in March tested positive for coronavirus.

After attending the event, the group's members travelled to various parts of the country, with many of them carrying the virus.

Bengaluru, Jun 17: The Congress on Wednesday decided to field senior party leader B K Hariprasad and incumbent Naseer Ahmed as candidates for the coming legislative council polls in Karnataka.

"The Congress President Sonia Gandhi has approved the proposal for the candidature of B K Hariprasad and Naseer Ahmed as Congress candidates to contest the biennial elections to the Legislative Council of Karnataka to be elected by the MLAs," the AICC said in a release.

The election is necessitated as the term of seven MLCs- Naseer Ahmed, Jayamma, M C Venugopal, N S Bose Raju, H M Revanna (all Congress), T A Sharavana (JDS) and independent D U Mallikarjuna- will end June 30.

Polling will be held on June 29 to fill seven MLC berths, and June 18 is the last date for filing of nominations.

While the BJP is in a position to win four out of seven seats, the Congress can win two and the JD(S) one.

Twenty-eight valid votes of MLAs are required for each candidate to win.

Hariprasad’s candidature has been announced as his tenure in the Rajya Sabha is coming to end on June 25.

He has also served as general secretary of the party.

Naseer Ahmed, who is retiring as MLC on June 30, will be seeking another term.

According to state Congress president D K Shivakumar, more than 200 aspirants have sought tickets for the two seats that the party can win in the legislative council polls.

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.