8 yrs after Vamanjoor Rohi’s murder, his son Pavan Raj hacked to death

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, Jul 9: Alarmed over surging COVID-19 cases, the Karnataka government has decided to divide this tech city into containment zones to curb the spread of the pandemic, a state minister said on Thursday.

"The city will be divided into red, orange and yellow zones in commensurate with the number of Covid cases in them for containing the virus spread on war footing," Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister J.C. Madhuswamy told reporters here.

Cabinet ministers representing assembly segments in the city will be in-charge of the zones to ensure the cases are curbed with strict enforcement of lockdown guidelines, especially wearing mask and maintaining social distancing by the people in the confinement areas.

"Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa has convened a meeting of ministers, MLAs, MPs and corporators of all the 198 civic wards across the city on Friday to discuss and draw an action plan to contain the pandemic," said Madhuswamy.

With 1,148 positive cases, the city''s Covid tally rose to 12,509 and active to 10,103, while 2,228 were discharged, including 418 on Wednesday, while 177 succumbed to the infection since March 9, with 23 in the last 24 hours.

"The Chief Minister ordered deploying more ambulances in the containment areas where cases have been spiking daily to rush Covid patients to the nearest hospital for immediate treatment," said Madhuswamy.

The city civic corporation -- Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) --has increased the containment zones to 3,181 due to more cases spiking, with southern and western suburbs accounting for most infections.

"The containment zones are concentrated more in the city''s southern and western suburbs. Active cases doubled over the last 8 days and shot up to a whopping 12,509 from 4,555 on June 30," an official said.

Refuting graft charges by opposition Congress leader Siddaramaiah in the purchase of medical equipment for treatment of Covid patients, Madhuswamy said the state government had not spent more than Rs 600 crore so far.

"We are running a government. Not a private office. We will give account. He (Siddaramaiah) is welcome to check the accounts and verify the documents," asserted the minister.

In a related development, the cabinet also approved an ordinance to increase the state contingency fund to Rs 500 crore from Rs 80 crore for the Covid-19 induced economic relief measures announced by the chief minister in June.

Bengaluru, Apr 9: The Karnataka government is currently engaged in discussions with experts, specialists and other stakeholders to decide on its lockdown exit strategy and would take a final view by April 13, a key Minister said on Thursday.

"Day after tomorrow we have a VC (videoconference) with the Prime Minister," Medical Education Minister Sudhakar K, who is in-charge of all matters related to COVID-19, noted when asked about the States strategy.

He said a task force of specialist doctors on Wednesday submitted its report to the government, giving its recommendations.

"We are meeting lot of stakeholders of the society taking their views," the Minister said, adding, the Cabinet would also hold discussions.

"Finally, day after tomorrow, after discussing with the Prime Minister during the VC, the government will take a view on this by April 13 or so. As of now, we have not taken any view on it. We are studying all the reports," Sudhakar told PTI.

The Minister observed that the COVID-19 cases were slowly spiking in India but not multiplying the way they have in some other countries like Italy, Spain and the United States as the government had declared 21-day national lockdown early and taken other strict measures. "Let's see for one week and see."

"We need to fight this out collectively and by strictly following the quarantine methods and social distancing," Sudhakar stressed.

The Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa had on Wednesday said his government was in favour of lifting lock-down in districts which remained free from COVID-19 after April 14 subject to approval from the Centre.

"If the Prime Minister suggests to States to take decision (on lock-down) based on the situation in their respective States, my position is to take a call (on roll- back) in districts free from COVID-19," he had said.

"This is to allow people to go about their business and move about within the district and not from one district to another, after April 14, after taking the approval of the Prime Minister."

According to State officials, as many as 12 districts continue to remain free from COVID-19.

The task force has recommended continuation of lockdown at "hot spots" beyond April 14.

It has suggested that schools and colleges be shut till May 31, while non-air-conditioned shops can be opened.

Also, IT/BT companies, government offices providing essential services and factories can function with 50 per cent staff, the task force said in its recommendations for 15-day period after April 14.