Police officers were in Kalladka Bhat’s house a day before they killed two Muslim men: HDK

Bengaluru, Feb 16: Deputy chief minister Laxman Savadi’s election to the lone vacant council seat, for which a bypoll has been called, is only a formality as the only other candidate in the contest, independent BR Anil Kumar, dropped out on Saturday.

Kumar conveyed his decision to council secretary and returning officer Vishalakshmi. He decided to withdraw from the February 17 bypoll after failing to get support from Congress and JD(S) legislators.

The bypoll was necessitated after sitting member Rizwan Arshad of Congress resigned as he moved to the legislative assembly as an MLA. Rizwan won the Shivajinagar bypoll in December last year.

“Since the notification on candidates in the fray, after the last date of withdrawal, has already been published, irrespective of any candidate’s retirement, the election has to be conducted,” an official said.

Savadi’s victory was always assured as BJP has 119 members in the House.

Still, Ramanagara BJP district president Rudresh and MP BY Raghavendra reportedly approached Kumar, urging him to withdraw. Kumar, however, denied that he was persuaded by BJP.

“I entered the fray thinking secular parties and likeminded MLAs will support me, but that didn’t happen, so I decided to retire,”he said.

A section of Congress and JD(S) politicians, led by former minister HD Revanna, had persuaded Kumar to enter the contest with the hope that disgruntlement among some BJP legislators over Savadi’s promotion as the deputy CM would result in an upset.

Former chief minister HD Kumaraswamy also offered to support Kumar. Siddaramaiah of Congress refused to do the same. Congress and JD(S) did not field any candidates of their own as they don’t have the requisite numbers in the House.

Savadi must get elected to the council before February 20, otherwise he will lose his cabinet role. According to rules, a person who is not a member of either House should get elected within six months after becoming a minister. Savadi took oath on August 20 last year.

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.

Dubai, Jul 25: The founder of NMC Health, BR Shetty, has had a worldwide freezing order placed on his assets at the request of a lender that claims he has defaulted on a loan of more than $8 million (Dh29.4m).

The order was granted to Credit Europe Bank (Dubai) last month ahead of a claim filed at the DIFC Courts against Mr Shetty, New Medical Centre Trading and NMC Healthcare.

The lender said in its claim they “are jointly and severally liable” for the repayment of money initially secured through a credit agreement in December 2013 and renegotiated in December last year. Credit Europe Bank is an Amsterdam-headquartered institution specialising in trade and commodities finance with operations in nine countries.

The credit agreement was guaranteed by two security cheques which the bank said in its claim were signed by Mr Shetty – one drawn on his personal account and another on the account of New Medical Centre Trading – that have been "dishonoured upon presentation due to insufficient funds".

The bank claimed Mr Shetty “has now fled the jurisdiction of the UAE to India” and that there was a risk of his “substantial” assets in the Emirates being dissipated.

The assets frozen include properties in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, as well as shares in NMC Health, Finablr, BRS Investment Holdings and other companies. It allows for up to $7,000 per week to be spent on “ordinary living expenses and reasonable sum[s] on legal advice and representation”, a DIFC Courts document granting the freezing order shows.

Credit Europe Bank declined to comment when contacted by The National, stating it does not comment on ongoing litigation proceedings. Representatives for Mr Shetty and for NMC Healthcare, which is now being run by administrators Alvarez & Marsal, also declined to comment.

NMC Healthcare was founded by Mr Shetty in 1975 and grew from a single hospital into the UAE’s biggest privately-owned healthcare operator, which employed 2,000 doctors and 20,000 other staff. The company was listed on the London stock exchange and at its peak was valued at £8.58 billion (Dh40bn). However, its shares slumped after short seller Muddy Waters Research issued a report in December 2019 alleging the company had inflated its cash balances, overpaid for assets and understated its debts. This led to a string of damaging revelations by the company, including the fact that its debt was materially higher – at $6.6bn – than the $2.1bn on its balance sheet. NMC Healthcare was placed into administration in April by its biggest creditor, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, but its UAE businesses continue to trade as a going concern.

Mr Shetty said in a statement issued in April that he has been a victim of fraud committed by "a small group of current and former executives” at companies owned by him. He said bank accounts were created in his name and transactions were made without his knowledge, and that loans, cheques and bank transfers were also fraudulently guaranteed in his name using his forged signature.

In response to the claim filed by Credit Europe Bank (Dubai) at the DIFC Courts, Mr Shetty says he did not personally guarantee loans made to NMC Trading or NMC Healthcare and that the signatures used on cheques guaranteeing the loans are forgeries. His defence cites the opinion of “Dr Al Bah, an independent, experienced and qualified forensic document examiner”, that someone other than Mr Shetty signed the lending agreements and cheques.

An application by NMC Trading and NMC Healthcare to the DIFC Courts to have the claim against it heard in private for fear of triggering claims by other lenders – the group owes money to around 80 local, regional and international lenders – was dismissed, given that the appointment of administrators at the group and allegations of fraud at the company are already in the public domain.

Both companies have indicated to DIFC Courts that they intend to contest the claim against them.