'Kundapur accident that claimed lives of 8 students could have been avoided'

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, May 17: Left to itself, Karnataka will look to spring back towards normalcy under Lockdown 4.0 as the state government is on standby to resume public transport services from May 18, if the Centre allows it. 

Though KSRTC and BMTC have been preparing for resumption of services, officials in the two corporations told DH that they cannot make a move till the government makes a decision.

Transport Commissioner N Shivakumar said the department will take a decision based on the state government's orders. "The government will take a call on buses as well as taxi and other transport services," he said.

Senior officials in the state government said Deputy Chief Minister and Transport Minister Laxman Savadi has written to Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways Nitin Gadkari seeking a nod for resumption of the services. 

Transport Secretary Gaurav Gupta has written a separate letter to his counterpart in the Union government requesting permission to operate public transport. "The state government wants the services to open. The official has listed out the steps the corporations will take to ensure social distancing other steps that will be taken to check spread of Coronavirus," a source said.

The B S Yediyurappa administration has been bullish on easing lockdown restrictions. 

If the Centre empowers the states to define Lockdown 4.0, Karnataka is likely to do away with the red-orange-green zoning of districts and allow public services to resume, except in COVID-19 containment zones. The government is also likely to redefine its containment strategy by micromanaging localities where COVID-19 cases are reported, without letting life in an entire district get affected. 

The government has already shown willingness to allow hotels and gyms to open after May 17 subject to social distancing norms and restrictions. In fact, the government has proposed to allow the resumption of all economic activities in standalone establishments. The government, however, is not keen on opening malls, theatres, diners and establishments that have centralized air conditioning. 

“Everything depends on the Centre,” Deputy Chief Minister CN Ashwath Narayan said. “Our only stand is that the red zone should be treated at par with the other zone when it comes to relaxation.” 

Mangaluru, June 29: As many as 32 fresh covid positive cases were reported in Dakshina Kannada today. In Udupi 18 new positive cases were reported. 

In Dakshina Kannada out of the 32 positive cases, one had returned from another state. Ten persons had contracted the disease from patient number 9590, 10274, 10275, 9739, 9589, 12384 and 10582.

Nine persons are suffering from influenza-like illness (ILI), and Six others are suffering from Severe Acute Respiratory Infection. The health officials are tracing the contacts of five others.

In Udupi, out of 18 positive cases, 5 had travelled from Maharashtra, four had travelled from Bangaluru and nine others had contracted the virus from the COVID Positive patients.