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.
Comments
This passage has always been quoted out of context and never post other verses 9:1-14, If they did, people would find out that it says the opposite of what they claim. Read from 9:1 – 9:14,
Islam never says to kill non-believers and this wording is related to pagans at the time of renovation. Quran is not an ordinary book. To understand the quran better you need to study Hadith and history. Dear brother Rudra I really appreciate your quote and I advise you to study more and more about islam to find truth. May Almighty Allah Guide you and your family in a right way. May Allah bless you if he wishes. Insha halla
Dear Asokan, dont trust on sanghis who are trying to brain wash you. Whatever you have stated is wrong. Your daughter has no passport to go out of india. Secondly your son-in-law is not a terrorist but those sanghis who are brain washing are the real terrorists who killed Bapuji.
All claims, no proof.
Kill unbelievers where you find them. koran 9:5
Do you dare to deny it? Do you follow it ? pseudo muslim.
As per Quran, All muslims are not terrorists, there is no doubt in it.
I agree with you whatever legal points of view expressed. Hadiya is matured, educated lady and free to convert, believe and marry the boy of her choice.
There is another face to this, which also to be a face of parents! irrespective of Ashokan's Sangh parivar leanings, keep in mind that he is father of Hadiya.They born & bought up her for 24 years and all of sudden they lost her! How their agony, misery and sufferings will be? Just keep us in his place and think, don’t we require little introspection?
Mr.Ashokan Miscerabley failed to prove his claim as said! now even the supereme court allowed Hadiya to meet Mr.Shafin Jahan! the above statement is out of his frustration he maight have said. Now a days it is very easy to paint some one as terrorist , and some as nationalist! media and some Govt. agency under RSS control anything may happen in future as they decide who is nationalist and who is anti national!
Pray for Mr.Ashokan, Please read Islamic history before you comment.
Every one misunderstood that accepting islam is just taking membership. Islam is way of Life proved scientifically and logically. It is just way of Life. any one can learn Islam and practise it. It is open and no body will force to accept islam. It is choice to practise Law defined by Our creator. No body wil be a True Muslim unless he practice the way of life defined by creator. increasing membership in islam no use. Every one should understand their creator and obey him. It is very simple and beautiful. If any one understand the principles of Islam. automatically he will attract. and identify his creator. Only our creator can read our mind and understand true believer. by name we cannot say he is true beleiver.
"If thousands of crminals escape also no innocent should be punished"
"one should not eat full if neighbour is starving"
what a beautiful teaching. We pray Al mighty Allah shows right path for all human being.
Now he need Treatment from Mental Hospital.
How dare Asokan to call a man terrorist without a proof ?
He has the rights to object to the marriage but, can't call a man terrorist.
Drag him to court of law for defamation.
LOL
mr. jahan, file defamation case against this ignorant human...
In sha allah on judgment day hadiya's father will realize that her daughter had made a right decission by entering to the fold of islam and saved her life from hell fire. But sad part is her father is not realizing this now. I pray with almighty that to give hidayah to hadiya's father.
If ALLAH wills, one day you will come to realise that my daughter hadiya has taken a good descision, from dark to light. and i hope that hadiyas entire family will be enter to islam. May ALLAH guide you to understand islam. Aameen.
Add new comment