Wearing saffron turban Owaisi campaigns for BJP’s potential ally in Karnataka

Bengaluru, May 30: Bengaluru City civic body Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on the food delivery startup Swiggy for irresponsible disposal of waste, an official said on Friday.

"Thinking of food is great - Swiggy. Hope you also think of segregating waste and disposing of it responsibly," tweeted BBMP Solid Waste Management Special Commissioner D. Randeep.

Randeep said a penalty of Rs 50,000 was imposed on Swiggy Kitchen at Katriguppe in the city for the violation.

"The incident with respect to waste segregation has been brought to our notice and happened at one of our kitchens in Bengaluru," confirmed a Swiggy spokesperson to IANS without revealing the exact details.

He said the startup is aware of its civic responsibility and has stringent processes to ensure high standards of compliance.

"While we investigate and rectify the root cause of the matter, we are reinforcing necessary awareness on the best practices to be followed amongst our teams and partner network to ensure complete compliance with waste management," the spokesperson added.

Swiggy has been penalised earlier as well for its irresponsible disposal of waste.

Recently, the BBMP’s solid waste management department has also fined an apartment complex Rs 15,000 for not segregating waste into dry, wet and reject categories.

Waste disposal norms for apartments

"Segregation of waste is mandatory in apartments. Onus of enforcing segregation rules lies on the (apartment) association and waste should be segregated as dry, wet and reject," said Randeep.

InClover Grand Apartments at Baiyappanhalli was penalised for the offence of improper waste disposal. Similarly, BBMP marshals also caught and fined some people openly discarding waste in public spaces.

"Dear citizens, please change your old habits. Our marshals are watching and will fine those who throw garbage in public spaces," BBMP Special Commissioner Randeep said.

He shared the photographs of two scooter-borne individuals being caught in the act and penalised at Kuvempunagar in Bengaluru.

It has been 33 years since the night of 22 May, 1987 when nearly 50 Muslim men from Hashimpura, a settlement in Meerut were rounded up and packed into the rear of a truck of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), an armed police of Uttar Pradesh. It was the blessed month of Ramadan and all the Muslims were fasting.

That night 42 of those on board the truck were killed in two massacres in neighbouring Ghaziabad district. One along the Upper Ganga canal near Muradnagar, the other along the Hindon canal in Makanpur, on the border with Delhi.

The cops had returned home after dumping the dead bodies into the canal. A few days later, the dead bodies were found floating in the canal and a case of murder was registered. 

Vir Bahadur Singh was the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and Rajiv Gandhi was the prime minister of India when this incident took place. 

Not much has changed for the survivors and the relatives of the victims even today. The wounds are still fresh. Hashimpura remains devoid of basic municipal amenities, the erring silence on the narrow lanes of the locality amid the activities of a daily life speaks of the horror of the fateful day in 1987.

The massacre was the result of one among the many outcomes of the decision taken by the Rajiv Gandhi government to open the locks of Babri Masjid. After a month of rioting, the situation was tense in various parts of Meerut, and a lot spilled over in the nearby areas.

Timeline

May 22, 1987

Nearly 50 Muslims picked up by the PAC personnel from Hashimpura village in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
Victims later shot and bodies thrown into a canal. 42 persons declared dead.

1988

UP government orders CB-CID probe in the case.

February 1994

CB-CID submits inquiry report indicting over 60 PAC and police personnel of all ranks.

May 20, 1996

Charge sheet filed against 19 accused before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad by CB-CID of Uttar Pradesh police. 161 people listed as witnesses.

September 2002

Case transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court on a petition by the families of victims and survivors.

July 2006

Delhi court frames charges of murder, attempt to murder, tampering with evidence and conspiracy under the IPC against 17 accused.

March 8, 2013

Trial court dismisses Subramanian Swamy's plea seeking probe into the alleged role of P Chidambaram, then Minister of State for Home, in the matter.

January 22, 2015

Trial court reserves judgement.

March 21, 2015

Court acquits 16 surviving accused giving them benefit of doubt regarding their identity.

May 18, 2015

Trial court decision challenged in the Delhi HC by the victims' families and eyewitnesses who survived the incident.

May 29, 2015

HC issues notice to the 16 PAC personnel on Uttar Pradesh government's appeal against the trial court verdict.

December 2015

National Human Rights Commission is impleaded in the matter. NHRC also seeks further probe into the massacre.

February 17, 2016

HC tags Swamy's appeal with the other petitions in the matter.

September 6, 2018

Delhi HC reserves verdict in the case.

October 31, 2018

Delhi HC convicts 16 former PAC personnel for life after finding them guilty of the murder of 42 people.

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.