Coronavirus forces Modi govt to defer NPR, first phase of Census

Mysuru, Jan 19: The 'City of Palaces', for the first time in history, got a Muslim woman as its first citizen, on Saturday.

Tasneem, a JD(S) Corporator, is elected as the 22nd Mayor of Mysuru. The 34-year-old Tasneem is a second-time corporator, representing Ward number, 26. She defeated BJP candidate Geetha Yogananda, representing Ward no 65 of Srirampura, by a margin of 24 votes. Out of 70 members, who were present during the election, 47 voted for Tasneem, 23 for Geetha Yogananda.

Tasneem thanking the party leaders said the JD(S) gave her an opportunity to serve the city and its people. JD(S) gives more priority for minorities. The party facilitated the first Muslim Mayor, Arif Hussian, in 1996. Later, Congress corporator Ayub Khan served as mayor in 2008.

Women from different communities had served as mayor of the city, but, Tasneem is the first Muslim woman to be elected as Mayor of Mysuru.

Tasneem, a BA Graduate from Maharani's College, was proud for being the first citizen and thanked party supremo H D Deve Gowda, leaders H D Kumaraswamy, MLAs Sa Ra Mahesh, G T Devegowda, K S Rangappa, and her colleagues in the Mysuru City Corporation. Tasneem extended her gratitude to her voters, who voted her for the second time.  

'Mysuru is known for cleanliness. Thus, my first priority is to maintain cleanliness and I will work towards retaining the 'Clean city' tag. The city is facing issues related to street lights among others for many days. I will make prompt attempts to resolve them,' she said.

JD(S) city president K T Cheluvegowda said the party nominated Tasneem for mayor's post as per the suggestion from the party supremo H D Deve Gowda and other leaders. There were other aspirants, but, they were convinced and nominated Tasneem, he said.

Mangaluru, Jan 23: Members of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) on Thursday held a protest against the Karnataka government, accusing it of shielding Aditya Rao, the main accused of planting an improvised explosive device (IED) at the Mangaluru airport on January 20.

Meanwhile, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Court has sent the accused Aditya Rao to 10 days police custody.

Earlier on Wednesday, the Bengaluru Police said that the procedure is being followed to hand-over to the Mangaluru Police a suspect who surrendered before it two days after planting an improvised explosive device (IED) at the Mangaluru International Airport.

The IED was later defused in an open field by the personnel of the bomb disposal squad.

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.