Mangaluru: Burkha-clad CFI girls protest in front St Agnes College over hijab ban

 Mangaluru, July 18: The coastal districts of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi recorded a total of 346 covid positive cases in last 24 hours. Dakshina Kannada recorded 4 new deaths.

While DK recorded 237 positive cases, neighbouring Udupi saw 109 people testing positive. It may be recalled that DK and Udupi had reported a combined record spurt of 347 Covid-19 cases for a single day on Thursday. 

Dakshina Kannada 

As many as 26,368 samples have been sent for tests so far. Among them 23,096 have turned out negative, and 3,311 people have received positive report. Currently there are 1,848 active cases while 1,387 persons have recovered. 109 patients were discharged from Wenlock as well as private hospitals today. Including today’s four deaths, 75 people have succumbed to covid. Among them 12 are from other districts.

The patients whose deaths were reported today are a 74-year-old female from Puttur who was also suffering from heart disease and asthma, a 67-year-old male who was suffering from pneumonia and was on ventilator, and two females aged 49 and 61 from Mangaluru who suffered cardiac arrest.

Udupi

With 109 new cases, the total number of covid positive cases reported in the district mounted to 2088. Among new cases 58 belong to Udupi taluk, 40 are from Kundapur and 11 from Karkala. 

A total of 24,382 samples have been collected so far, including 524 on Saturday, out of which 17 are coronavirus suspects and 317 are COVID contacts. Out of them, 21,757 samples have turned out to be negative, including 292 on Saturday, and 537 reports are awaited.

As many as 1,586 patients have been discharged so far including 43 on Saturday, and 492 cases are currently active. Ten deaths have occurred so far. One positive case has been transferred to Dakshina Kannada.

Bengaluru, May 15: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa on Friday said that the new amendment in the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) Act will substantially aid the farmers in getting remunerative price for their produce.

"Our motto is 'First Farmers'. The new amendment in the APMC Act will provide an opportunity for farmers to sell their produce directly to any purchase outside APMC or in other APMCs. This will help the farmers in getting remunerative price for their produce," CM Yediyurappa tweeted.

"Amendment will not dilute the powers of the work of the APMCs. All these marketing activities will be monitored by the Directorate of State APMC. This new amendment Act will benefit farmers in improving their income & suffering from losses due to market fluctuations," the Karnataka CM added.

Yediyurappa further said that the amendment will indirectly help farmers in doubling their income by 2022.

"This amendment will indirectly help farmers in doubling their income by 2022. I want to clarify that we have not removed the APMC Act, we are only amending 2 sections of the APMC Act which enable farmers to sell their produce at the markets where they intend to," he tweeted.

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.