Indian expat held for forced selfie with air hostess on Dammam-Mumbai flight

Bengaluru, Jan 14: Days after the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) capped to Rs 35,000 the withdrawal limit of Sri Guru Raghavendra Co-operative Bank, BJP MP Tejasvi Surya on Monday reassured account holders and said Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman was personally monitoring the issue.

Taking to Twitter, Surya said, "I want to assure all depositors of Sri Guru Raghavendra Co-operative Bank to not panic. Hon'ble Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is appraised of matter and is personally monitoring the issue. She has assured the government will protect interests of depositors. Grateful for her concern."

The Bengaluru South MP also attached a letter in his tweet where he had appraised Sitharaman of the situation.

"Finance Minister, after speaking with the RBI governor and other authorities concerned, assured Surya that the government will do everything in its capacity to protect the interests of the depositors and the long term interests of the bank," the letter read.

It said that Surya also reached out to Sitharaman "three times on January 13" after which she reassured him that the "depositors need not panic".

RBI had, on January 10, imposed certain restrictions on Sri Gururaghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha.

"In particular, a sum not exceeding Rs 35,000 of the total balance in every savings bank or current account or any other deposit account may be allowed to be withdrawn subject to conditions stated in the above RBI directions," the notification said.

The regulatory body said that the bank will continue to undertake banking business with restrictions until its financial position improves.

"These directions shall remain in force for a period of six months from the close of business of January 10 and are subject to review," it said.

The bank has been restricted from granting or renewing any loans and advances, make any investment, incur any liability including borrowal of funds and acceptance of fresh deposits, disburse or agree to disburse any payment whether in discharge of its liabilities and obligations or otherwise, enter into any compromise or arrangement and sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of any of its properties or assets except.

Bengaluru, Mar 10: Three more positive COVID-19 cases have been confirmed in Karnataka taking the tally to four, state Health Minister B Sriramulu on Tuesday informed.

"Their family members have been isolated and their health is being monitored. I urge citizens to take precautionary measures and co-operate in preventing the spread of this infection," Sriramulu said.

As on Monday, the national tally of persons affected by the coronavirus is 45.

According to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), in the past 24 hours, one positive case from Kerala, two from Pune, and three from Bengaluru have been confirmed.

Apart from the ICMR; National Institute of Virology in Pune; 51 Virus Research and Diagnostic Laboratories; and National Centre for Disease Control, New Delhi are carrying out tests for COVID-19.

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.