Mangaluru: BJP leaders caught red-handed while smuggling stolen cow?

Bengaluru, May 23: Karnataka reported 216 covid-19 positive cases in last 24 hours, marking the highest single day spike in the state ever since the first case was detected on 8 March. 187 of these 216 patients have recently returned from Maharashtra.

A 32-year old male resident of Bengaluru died on Saturday making it the 42nd fatality in the state.

The spike on Saturday takes the total number of covid-19 positive closer to the 2,000 mark and the number of active cases to 1,307 in the state, according to the daily health bulletin of the health department.

Yadgir in northern Karnataka recorded 72 cases on Saturday while Raichur recorded 40 cases. Cases in the sugarcane growing region of Mandya continued to rise as 28 people tested positive on Saturday that takes the total number of active cases to 211 as against Bengaluru that has 124.

Gadag registered 15 cases while Bengaluru recorded 4 cases.

Most of those who tested positive on Saturday had returned from other states, especially Maharashtra, one of the worst affected regions in the country.

The spike in cases comes even as the B.S.Yediyurappa-led state government is deliberating further easing of lockdown restrictions post 31 May. The state government has already resumed public bus and train services as well to facilitate inter-district movement of people that has added to fears of spreading the virus from cities to villages where healthcare infrastructure is poor and inadequate.

Karnataka will also see domestic flight arrivals from Monday.

In a statement on Saturday, Bengaluru International Airport said that it introduced ‘Parking-to-Boarding contactless’ journey.

“We have introduced innovative contactless procedures to minimise exposure at the Airport. These enhancements demonstrate our continued commitment to keep our passengers safe in this environment," said Hari Marar, managing director and chief executive of the airport said in a statement on Saturday.

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, Jun 20: Nine candidates filed their nominations for the June 29 elections to seven seats of the Karnataka legislative council on Thursday.

While the BJP has fielded four candidates, the Congress has given tickets to two and the JD(S) to one candidate respectively for the biennial elections to seven seats of the legislative council to be elected by the MLAs.

One independent and one person claiming to be affiliated to BJP have also filed their nomination papers at the office of Legislative Assembly Secretary MK Vishalakshi, who is also the returning officer for the polls.

"The nominations of two candidates without any proposers is likely to be rejected during scrutiny of the papers on Friday. So seven candidates will be in the fray for as many berths. Hence the election is likely to be unopposed if no one withdraws nominations," official sources said.

While scrutiny will take place, Friday, June 22 is the last date for withdrawal of candidature.

The election is necessitated as the term of seven MLCs — Naseer Ahmed, Jayamma, M C Venugopal, N S Bose Raju, H M Revanna (all Congress), T A Sharavana (JD(S)) and independent D U Mallikarjuna — will end June 30.

Based on their strength in the Assembly, while BJP is in a position to win four out of seven seats, Congress can win two and JD(S) one.

Twenty-eight valid votes of MLAs are required for each candidate to win.

Four BJP candidates MTB Nagaraj, R Shankar, Sunil Vallyapure and Pratap Simha Nayak filed their nominations today, after the party high command announced their names late on Wednesday.

Nagaraj and Shankar had played a key role in the formation of the BJP government after the coup that led to the collapse of Congress-JD(S) coalition.They had subsequently defected to the saffron party.

While Nagaraj lost the bye-elections held later, Shankar did not contest in exchange for a Council berth promise.

Among the other BJP candidates, Vallyapure is a former MLA from Chincholi and had given up his seat abiding by the party decision to field Avinash Jadhav, while Nayak is a senior party worker and had served as Dakshina Kannada district president.

A BJP insider said Shankar and Vallyapure have been given MLC tickets as they had given up their Assembly seats, while Nagraj was considered as he had faced a defeat during the bypolls because party MP B N Bachhe Gowda's son Sharath contested as a rebel.

Nayak's candidature is being seen as BJP high command's choice by party insiders, ignoring the state units recommendation of AH Vishwanath, a former JD(S) MLA who had defected to BJP.

Two Congress candidates, senior party leader BK Hariprasad and incumbent Naseer Ahmed also filed their nominations today.

Hariprasad's name was announced by the party on Wednesday, even as his tenure in Rajya Sabha is to end on June 25.

Naseer Ahmed, who is retiring as MLC on June 30 is seeking another term.

The choice of candidates by the Congress high command is being seen as a mixed bag for CLP leader Siddaramaiah as Naseer Ahmed is said to be close to him, while Hariprasad is considered among his adversaries.

In a surprise move, JD(S) has fielded Govinda Raju from Kolar as the party candidate for the MLC polls.

Incumbent MLC T A Sharavana and outgoing Rajya Sabha member Kupendra Reddy were seen as the prime aspirants for the ticket.

JD(S) leader and former Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy said Govinda Raju was chosen as it would help organise and strengthen the party in Kolar and Chikkaballapura region.

The independent candidate who has filed his papers today is P C Krishnegowda, and the one who filed his nomination claiming to be associated with BJP is Mandikkal Nagaraja.