2,000 students from 40 colleges to sing ‘Vande Mataram’ on Malpe beach to create record

Bengaluru, May 29: Seven out of ten (72 per cent) workers in Karnataka reported having lost their employment during the COVID-19-induced lockdown, according to findings of a survey by Azim Premji University, in collaboration with ten civil society organisations.

The university said in a statement it conducted "a detailed" phone survey of 5,000 workers across 12 states in the country, to gauge the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on employment, livelihoods, and access to government relief schemes.

The survey covered self-employed, casual, and regular wage and salaried workers and it released the findings for Karnataka on Thursday.

Seventy-six per cent of urban workers and 66 per cent of rural workers lost their employment, the survey findings said.

For non-agricultural self-employed workers and wage workers, who were still employed, average weekly earnings fell by two-third.

More than four in ten salaried workers (44 per cent) saw either a reduction in their salary or received no salary during the lockdown.

Six out of ten households reported that they did not have enough money to buy even a weeks worth of essential items, according to the survey.

Eight out ten households reported a reduction in food intake, while less than three in ten vulnerable households (27 per cent) in urban Karnataka received any form of cash transfer from the government, it said.

In summary, the disruption in the Karnatakas economy and labour markets is enormous. Livelihoods have been devastated at unprecedented levels during the lockdown.

The recovery from this could be slow and very painful, the statement said.

As a response to the findings of this survey, the team which has conducted the survey suggested a universalisation of the PDS to expand its reach and implementation of expanded rations for at least the next six months.

It suggested cash transfers equal to at least Rs.7000 per month for two months, and proactive steps like expansion of MGNREGA, introduction of urban employment guarantee, and investment in universal basic services, among others.

Davanagere, May 3: Karnataka's Davanagere district on Sunday reported 21 COVID-19 positive cases, said Mahantesh Beelagi, Deputy Commissioner.

The number of COVID-19 patients has suddenly taken a giant leap in the district.

"We had sent 94 samples on May 1, on May 2 we sent 72 samples. Today we sent 164 samples for testing. In the last two days, 21 samples have tested positive for coronavirus, we are tracing to know how did all of them came in contact with COVID-19 infected person," said Mahantesh Beelagi.

"Our surveillance team and police team have started tracing the primary and secondary contacts of all 21 people," he added.
Davanagere is currently in the Green Zone.

Meanwhile, 13 new COVID-19 positive cases were reported in Karnataka till 5 pm on Sunday, taking the total number of cases in the state to 614, according to the State Health Department.

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.