Karnataka Reports 1,839 COVID-19 Cases, 42 Deaths, Biggest Jump So Far

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, Mar 2: The Opposition Congress and the JD(S) members protested in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly on Monday over the BJP leader Basavaraj Patil Yatnal's alleged derogatory remark against veteran freedom fighter H S Doreswamy.

Opposition Leader in the Assembly and former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, raised the issue, immediately after the obituary reference of sudden demise of former Minister C Chanigappa, and sought permission from the Speaker to raise the issue of Yatnal's outburst in the House stating that the matter of hurling defamatory remark against Gandhian Doreswamy, by Mr Yatnal, was very much serious. However, the treasury bench members protested and urged the Speaker not to allow the matter to discuss as the issue was not in the agenda.

The Speaker, Vishveshwar Hegde Kageri, promised the Congress leader about permitting the issue after the House adopts resolution on the thanksgiving motion for the Governor's address of the joint House recently and asked Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa to continue his reply to the Governor's address.

The opposition Congress and the JD(S) members, protesting the Speaker's action, trooped into the well of the house and raised slogans against the BJP government.

The Chief Minister continued his reply amidst the din before the Speaker adjourned the House for 30 minutes after the House adopted the thanksgiving motion to the Governor's Address.

Bengaluru, Feb 28: “Those who struggle to come up can understand people’s problems better. Yediyurappa is one such leader who has reached this position after a struggle,’’ said former chief minister Siddaramaiah, in praise of Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa, who celebrated his 78th birthday on Thursday in Bengaluru.

Siddaramaiah was the only non-BJP leader on the dais, who not only attended the event, but was present throughout. He released a coffee table book, ‘A Leader who Saw Tomorrow’, on Yediyurappa’s life and achievements, compiled by The New Indian Express.

Dwelling on the political spectrum and human relationships, Siddaramaiah said, “Our ideologies are different, but that is limited to politics. Politics should not come between personal relationships.’’ Recalling his association with Yediyurappa, Siddaramaiah said that in 1983, he and Yediyurappa had entered the Assembly for the first time.

“Yediyurappa did not become chief minister just like that. It took years of struggle and hard work. We both have many similarities — neither of us came from political backgrounds. We came up through struggle and those who come from such backgrounds understand people,’’ he said.

Siddaramaiah said that it was Yediyurappa who first became chief minister, and he had reached the post only five years later. “I am five years younger than him, maybe that is the reason,’’ he said on a lighter note. Yediyurappa has become chief minister four times, but I have been chief minister only once, he added. He also spoke about how Yediyurappa had played an important role in bringing the BJP to power in the state, the party’s first government in South India. “Very few leaders know the pulse of the state and Yediyurappa is one among them,’’ he said.