Ananthamurthy cremated with full state honours

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, Jan 14: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued a notice to the government of Karnataka while hearing the plea for ordering Judicial probe into the December 19, violence and police action in Mangaluru.

On December 19, the local police while taking action against anti-CAA and NRC protesters had fired at them which had killed two citizens. The police action was then followed by curfew in the region for over 48 hours.

The High Court bench hearing the plea of JD(s) leader Iqbal and Sullia Pattan Panchayat member Iqbal seeking its intervention to order judicial probe into the matter has issued the notice to the government.

Bengaluru, Mar 11: Did Congress party’s Man Friday, DK Shivakumar, not rise up to the occasion and save the situation for the party, whose rebel MLAs were flown into Bengaluru to unsettle the Kamal Nath-led government in Madhya Pradesh? Shivakumar told The New Indian Express on Tuesday, “So far, I have not got any clear direction on what has to be done. But I am in touch with the central leaders. The party does not want to antagonise them... They are our own MLAs.”

He said that the Tenth Schedule, which makes defections illegal, is very strong. “It is not so easy for them once they are expelled. There are courts and then they have to get re-elected. It is not easy to get minister’s post after getting re-elected,” he added.

When pointed out that rebels from the Congress and JD(S) who joined the BJP have got re-elected and become ministers, he said, “There are other issues here.”

Asked about Digvijay Singh, who is at the centre of the controversy in MP and who was AICC general secretary in-charge of Karnataka, not being able to prevent the rebellion in his home state, Shivakumar said, “I do not want to comment on any of our national leaders.”But he was confident that the Congress government would be saved in MP. “I am aware of the developments and keeping track of them,” he said.

Congress leaders seemed wiser after the event.

One of them, who wished not to be identified, said the party clearly did not see the writing on the wall. “Jyotiraditya Scindia supported the BJP at the Centre when it scrapped Article 370. Later too he was not in line with the Congress position on several issues. But during the recent Delhi violence, he criticised the BJP, sending confusing signals,” he added.