Terror accused Pragya now seeks apology from those who took action against her

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 28: Brace for hefty traffic penalties as the state government is all set to reverse a notification on revised fines which came into effect last September following pushback from road users and opposition parties.

The Karnataka government will implement traffic penalties as stipulated in the amended Motor Vehicles Act, 2019, in a phased manner following a diktat from the Centre. The government did not specify the timeline for it.

“At a recent meeting of transport ministers from various states, the Union government explained why it wanted to implement these huge fines. We found it convincing and will implement it in its original form,” said transport minister Laxman Savadi on Monday.

Savadi said India’s image globally has taken a beating due to the high number of road deaths and the Centre wants to change it at any cost. However, he said the entire set of hefty fines would not be reintroduced all at once.

BJP govt revised rates in Sept

The BJP government last September had revised fines on compoundable offences and those which are fined on the spot by traffic cops by 50%- 80%, barring drunken driving and racing.

As per the revised rates, helmetless riding attracted a penalty of Rs 500 against Rs 1,000 notified by the Centre. Driving without a licence attracted a fine of Rs 1,000 for

two- and three-wheelers and Rs 2,000 for light motor vehicles as against the earlier Rs 5,000 for all types of vehicles.

The central government recently told states and Union Territories they should enforce fines as per the amended Act and they cannot be rolled back. The road transport and highways ministry said fines cannot be reduced below the minimum amount fixed by law, unless the President gives his assent.

Bengaluru, June 29: The Karnataka government on Monday issued guidelines to conduct online classes for all students of ICSE, CBSE and SSLC under the directions of the High Court.

According to the guidelines, for the kindergarten students, online classes can be held 30 minutes a week and students in classes 1-5 will have online classes for 30-45 minutes divided into two periods for three alternate days every week.

For students in classes 6-8, the online classes will be for 30-45 minutes divided into two periods for five days every week while students in classes 9 and 10 can have the virtual classes for 30-45 minutes divided into four periods for five days a week.

Earlier, the state government barred online classes for the kids from LKG to class 5.

Minister for primary and secondary education S Suresh Kumar had said that online classes cannot be held for the kids from LKG to class V.