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.
Comments
Elite Indian nationalism defined: Every elite Indian can give his/her life for learning English if he/she needs to live in New York or London. But no elite Indian will sacrifice even a penny for learning Kannada if he/she needs to live in Bengaluru. Nationalism of jokers is always like that. (There are some rare exceptions to that, of course).
Look at how much useful English has been to India: India is one of the worst countries in education; the most starved country; suffers trade losses of more than 40 billion US dollars each year with China alone (I hope you know China doesn't teach in English); ranks 150th in per capita exports; administratively the most stupid one because administration is being carried out in language whish people don't understand; Also read this quotation from a worldwide study carried out by UNESCO, ‘What seems to be standing in our way is a set of myths about language and learning, and these myths must be revealed as such to open people’s eyes. One such myth is that the best way to learn a foreign language is to use it as a medium of instruction. (In fact, it is often more effective to learn additional languages as subjects of study.) Another is that to learn a foreign language you must start as early as possible. (Starting early might help learners to have a nice accent, but otherwise, the advantage goes to learners who have a well developed first language.) A third is that the home language gets in the way of learning a foreign language. (Building a strong foundation in the first language results in a better learning of additional languages.) Clearly, these myths are more false than true, yet they guide the way policymakers tend to think about how speakers of other languages must learn dominant or official languages.’ I will like to discuss with you further Mr. BigZero. If you agree, mail me at [email protected]
Can anything be more anti-national and educationally more stupid than what these 'Crazy' Board of Secondary Education people are saying? Kindly give your arguments if your answer is in Yes. Today itself, I stated in my TV interview that I don't find any education Board educationally as illiterate as the Indian 'Crazy' Board of Secondary Education. This is one more evidence of their illiteracy. I have mailed to the CBSE sataraps about their illiteracy on educational matters. But they never replied.
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಮಾತೃ ಭಾಷೆಯನ್ನು ಉಳಿಸುವತ್ತ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಹೆಜ್ಜೆ. ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಅಭಿನಂದನೆಗಳು....
I find this interesting: "It is not a prestige not to learn Kannada...". Unfortunately,
many "elites" speak in other Languages - particularly in English - to show off.
There are problems with Kannadigaas too - we can't speak Kannada
without 80% English in it....
Court must be moved to knock out a ridiculous order. Language is correctly the choice of schools, parents and students. And students should not be burdened to learn languages that will have no use to them.
Karnataka govt. should close these schools if they refuse to comply.
When Hindi & English are mandatory and they did not make a hue and cry against these, what is their problem teaching Kannada in Karnataka?
UP-Bihar's Hindi language mandatory in Karnataka is OK, but not Kannada? What kind of nonsense is this?
@Ravi: Very correct and logical. Moreover, Karnataka and Kannada have been
taken for granted, by most of the people from outside.
People who don't want to learn Kannada in Karnataka and want to treat this place just as a safe haven for jobs, property and weather should leave the state. We have enough freeloaders here from all parts of the country resulting in the chaos in the city. Its time for the Govt. and Courts to tighten the strings.
Add new comment