Dhanyashree suicide case: Police targeting innocents, says BJP MP Shobha

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, May 29: Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister J C Madhuswamy on Thursday said the Centre has objected to the state's decision to increase working days at factories, and the matter would be discussed in the next cabinet meeting.

"....the Centre has raise objection to extending working days and has said it should be brought down. We will amend it....I will share the details after the next cabinet meet, the matter did not come up today (Thursday), we have received the letter," Madhuswamy told reporters in response to a question after the cabinet meeting.

He noted that a couple of states that had increased the working hours have withdrawn it. The Karnataka government had, on May 22, issued a notification allowing factories to extend working hours upto 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week till August 21. The extension of work hours is from the existing eight hours a day and 48 hours a week.

Pointing out that while announcing COVID-19 relief package, the Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa had announced Rs 5,000 per acre for maize farmers, Madhuswamy said while issuing the circular which mentioned that relief would be applicable to rabi crop, as it would not benefit many farmers.

Now, it has now been decided to give Rs 5,000 per acre to all maize farmers, irrespective of rabi or kharif. There were also several rules and regulations for barbers, autorickshaw and taxi drivers among others to claim their one-time compensation of Rs 5,000, the Minister said.

"We have decided to relax most of them (rules) other than those essential and give compensation, as regulations wouldn't have benefited many," he said. With five nominated seats of legislative council falling vacant on June 23, the cabinet has authorised the Chief Minister to nominate for 5 seats.

The cabinet also gave post-facto approval for Karnataka Repealing of Certain Enactments and Regional Law Bill 2020 that has been passed by the legislature.

New Delhi, Jan 28: The Supreme Court of India today granted bail to 17 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment in 2002 Gujarat massacre case, pending their appeal before the Supreme Court.

The convicts also have to participate in social and spiritual services, said the court, announcing the riders for bail.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant directed for the convicts to be segregated into two groups to be sent to Indore and Jabalpur.

District legal authorities in Indore and Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh have been asked to ensure that the convicts do the spiritual and social work the court has asked for.

The Supreme Court has also asked the administration to find them work for livelihood. The state legal services authority has been asked to file a compliance report as also report on their conduct.

The case concerns the mass killing of 33 innocent Muslims - mostly women and children - who were burnt alive at Sardarpura village in March 2002.

This was part of the mass massacre that swept through Gujarat in the aftermath of the death of train passengers on Sabarmati Express in Godhra on Feb 27, 2002. Thousands of innocent Muslims were killed and raped in the three-day violence. The victims include hundreds of children including newborns.

In 2016, the Gujarat High Court had upheld the conviction of 17 accused in the Sardarpura massacre case.

Earlier, a Special SIT court had convicted a total of 31 persons in the case, after three years of trial against 73 persons from Sardarpura and nearby villages.