Maha assembly suspends Muslim MLA for not saying Bharat Mata ki Jai'

Bengaluru, Mar 13: Senior IPS officer KSR Charan Reddy, who was the Additional Director General of Police in Criminal Investigation Department, Karnataka passed away in Bengaluru on Friday after prolonged illness. 

He was reportedly battling cancer for at least three years now and had suffered multiple recurs after treatment. 

"Shri Charan Reddy, IPS, ADGP, Karnataka State, passed away this morning, after a prolonged illness. He was one of our finest officers. Always stood tall and held his head high!! May his soul rest in peace," Retired IPS officer and former Director General of Police (Fire Services) MN Reddi tweeted. 

IPS officer Charan Reddy was heading the Special Investigation Team of the Lokayukta when he arrested Vijayanagara MLA Anand Singh in 2015 for illegally transporting iron ore out of Ballari. The illegal mining scam had rocked the former BJP government in 2011.

Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa condoled his death and said that he was an honest officer in the state. "Charan Reddy was a dedicated and honest officer. I pray that his soul rests in peace. I pray that god gives his family the strength to go through such a turbulent time after his departure," BS Yediyurappa tweeted. 

A 1993-batch IPS officer, Charan Reddy KSR is originally from Chittoor and has served under various departments of the state's police force. He was serving as the Inspector General of Police in Belagavi division in 2013, when he was transferred to Bengaluru as the IGP (Training). In 2014, he was posted as the IGP of the SIT probing the illegal mining scam in which former Tourism Minister Gali Janardhana Reddy is also allegedly involved.

He was transferred out of the SIT in Lokayukta in 2016 and posted as Additional Commissioner of Police (law and order) in Bengaluru. He served as the ADGP of Crime in Mangaluru in 2018 and was later appointed as the Additional Director General of Police (training) the same year. In 2019, he was transferred and appointed as the ADGP of CID.

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, Apr 8: The Karnataka government is in favour of lifting the coronavirus lockdown in districts which remained free of the virus infection, subject to approval from the Centre, Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa said on Wednesday.

In an interview to, he also said the state intended to relax liquor sales, stopped since the 21-day lockdown was imposed to contain the spread of COVID-19, after April 14 in a bid to increase state revenues.

The chief minister said the state's legislators would take a 30 per cent salary cut.

According to officials, there were no COVID-19 cases in 12 districts of the total 30 districts in the state.

As on Wednesday, there were 181 COVID-19 cases in the state, including 5 deaths and 28 discharges.

"If the Prime Minister suggests to states to take decision (on lock-down) based on the situation in their respective states, my position is to take a call (on roll-back) in districts free from COVID-19", Yediyurappa said.

This is to allow people to go about their business and move about within the district and not from one district to another, after April 14, after taking the approval of the Prime Minister, he said.