Lynched under BJP rule in 2017, Pehlu Khan is now chargesheeted under Congress rule

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.

The government of India today said it will begin evacuating its nationals stuck abroad due to the coronavirus pandemic from May 7 in a phased manner. This facility would be made available on payment basis. 

A Standard Operating Protocol has been put in place and the travel would be arranged by aircraft as well as naval ships and will be available on a payment-basis, the government said.

"Medical screening of passengers would be done before taking the flight. Only asymptomatic passengers would be allowed to travel. During the journey, all these passengers would have to follow the protocols, such as the health protocols, issued by the ministry of health and the ministry of civil aviation," it said in a statement.

Specifying the protocols upon entry in India, the government said the returning Indians would be medically screened and will have to be quarantined for 14 days, either in a hospital or in an institutional quarantine on payment-basis, by the respective state government.

Newsroom, May 26: A migrant worker died of hunger while a 10-month-old boy suffering from fever and breathing difficulties died negligence in two separate incidents onboard Shramik Special trains in Uttar Pradesh.

The 46-year-old dead migrant worker’s nephew, who was accompanying him, said that the victim had not eaten anything in the last 60 hours.

Raveesh Yadav said that no food or water was provided on the train, which they had boarded from Mumbai to travel to their native place in Jaunpur district in Uttar Pradesh.

Yadav and his uncle were working as construction workers in Mumbai.

Yadav told the paper that the train had left the Lokmanya Terminal in Mumbai, at 7pm on May 20 and arrived at its final stop, Varanasi Cantonment station, at 7.30am on May 23.

“But my uncle, who was complaining of hunger and pain all over his body, fainted half an hour before we reached Varanasi Cantonment and died within a few minutes,” Raveesh was quoted as saying.

He added that he and his uncle were hungry when they boarded the train but could not find food or water to buy.

Railways’ apathy

Meanwhile, the family of 10 month old child, who died in the train, alleged that the railways did not arrange for a doctor despite their repeated pleas.

The railway doctors had been moved to Covid-19 hospitals and by the time a doctor was provided at Tundla railway station, it was too late, the report quoted the child's grandfather, Dev Lal, as saying.

Lal said that the family members had tried to speak to the GRP at many stations, including at Aligarh, where the train had halted. "But they showed no interest and said any help would be available only in Tundla,” Lal said.

Railways officials then took the kin to a quarantine centre in Tundla, as they suspected that the baby had died because of the novel coronavirus.  It was only on Monday that the incident came to light when another individual at the quarantine facility intimated journalists after the condition of the child's mother worsened.

Last November, the mother of the child, Priyanka Devi of Bihar's Notan village in West Champaran, had gone to visit her parents who reside in Noida with the baby, who was then just four months old. Her husband Pramod Kumar is a farmer, the report added.