Forget rivers and dams; groundwater too reaching danger level in Mangaluru

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, Jul 11: Karnataka on Saturday reported the biggest single-day spurt of 2,798 cases and a record 70 related fatalities, taking the total number of infections in the state to 36,216, the health department said.

The day also saw a record 880 patients getting discharged after recovery.

Out of 2,798 fresh cases, a whopping 1,533 cases were from Bengaluru urban alone.

The previous biggest single-day spike was recorded on July 10 with 2,313 cases.

As of July 11 evening, cumulatively 36,216 COVID-19 cases have been confirmed in the state, which includes 613 deaths and 14,716 discharges, the health department said in its bulletin.

It said out of 20,883 active cases, 20,379 patients are in isolation at designated hospitals and are stable, while 504 are in ICU.

Out of 70 deaths reported, 23 are from Bengaluru urban, 8 from Mysuru, five from Dakshina Kannada, among others.

Most of the dead are either with a history of Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI) or Influenza-like illness (ILI).

Out of 2,798 cases tested positive today, contacts of the majority of the cases are still under tracing.

Among the districts where the new cases were reported, Bengaluru urban accounts for 1533 cases, followed by Dakshina Kannada 186, Udupi 90, Mysuru 83, Tumakuru 78, Dharwad 77 and Yadgir 74.

Bengaluru urban district tops the list of positive cases, with a total of 16,862 infections, followed by DakshinaKannada 2,026 and Kalaburagi 2,024.

A total of 7.99 lakh samples were tested so far, out of which 20,587 were tested on Saturday alone.

So far 7.46 lakh samples have been reported as negative, and out of them 17,488 were reported negative today.

New Delhi, Mar 4: The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed a trial court in Ramanagara district of Karnataka to ensure the presence of absconding self-styled godman Swami Nithyananda to face trial in a 2010 rape case.

A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde also allowed a plea by K Lenin alias Nithya Dharmananda, former driver of Nithyananda and had filed a complaint against Nithyananda, for cancellation of non-bailable warrants issued against him.

The apex court ordered the cancellation of the non-bailable warrants issued against the complainant in the case on the condition he shows up before the trial court in Ramanagara district today itself.

He had challenged the Karnataka High Court's February order where non-bailable warrants were issued against Lenin for not appearing before the court for recording evidence.

"Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court, which merely directs the petitioner to give evidence in support of his complaint," read the apex court order passed on Tuesday.

The Bench also directed that "the concerned trial court shall make every effort to ensure the presence of accused (Nithyananda) to face the proceedings."

The Karnataka High Court had last month cancelled the bail granted to Nithyananda, even as the state police claimed the absconding godman was on a 'spiritual tour'.

Nithyananda is facing charges of rape and indulging in unnatural sex. He was arrested on April 22, 2010, however, granted bail on June 11, the same year.