Mangaluru: NaMo Naresh remanded in 3-day police custody

Patna, Mar 31: In arguably the first of its kind incident in the country, a young man in Bihar was beaten to death precisely because he had informed the district control room about two corona suspects who had arrived here in the State from Mumbai.

The incident took place in Sitamarhi in North Bihar where a 20-year-old youth Bablu Kumar was allegedly killed by Sudhir Mahto and Munna Mahto.

The two Mahtos had arrived from Mumbai to Sitamarhi around ten days back. Bablu, in the meantime, informed the district control room about the arrival of two persons from a State where a large number of people were afflicted with coronavirus.

A team of doctors on March 24 reached Runnisaidpur in Sitamarhi to examine the two suspects. Three days later, these two persons from Maharashtra tested negative.

But the incident (of informing control room and subsequent medial test) created such enmity between the family of Mahtos and Babloo that on Sunday when they found the 20-year-old young man sitting alone, they thrashed him so mercilessly that he died on the spot.

Shocked and grief-struck, Babloo’s father Vinod Singh eventually lodged an FIR with the police and named Sudhir Mahto, Munna Mahto, and their family members as accused in the killing of his son.

The police on Monday raided the place and arrested the Mahtos.

But then, this is not an isolated case of violence. In another incident that took place in Bihar’s Jehanabad district, a BDO Ajay Kumar and a police officer Chandrashekhar Kumar were attacked by fellow villagers when the officials reached there to quarantine those migrants who had reached there from Delhi. So angry were the villagers with the officials’ move to isolate the migrants that they smashed the window-panes of the government vehicles and attacked the officials.

The officials had to beat a hasty retreat. But they soon returned with additional police team which used brutal force and took local leaders into custody before restoring normalcy in the area.

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, Jan 24: After Honnalli legislator MP Renukacharya, Ballari City MLA Somashekara Reddy and deputy chief minister Govind Karjol, it appeared the turn of revenue minister R Ashoka to show the BJP in poor light with controversial and provocative comments against a minority community. This, despite a gag order issued by state BJP president Nalin Kumar Kateel.

Responding to questions on the Mangaluru International Airport bomb scare incident and how the main accused would have been treated had he been a Muslim, Ashoka on Thursday said "all anti-nationals must be shot dead". Meanwhile, Renukacharya, also a political secretary to chief minister BS Yediyurappa, continued his tirade against Muslims, insisting the government will not extend any "special package" to the community.

Soon after garlanding the statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on the birth anniversary of the freedom fighter, at Vidhana Soudha on Thursday, Ashoka said: "All those who are singing the tune of Pakistan and indulging in anti-national activities, be they Hindu, Christian or Muslim, must be shot dead."

Asked to respond to former chief minister HD Kumaraswamy’s accusation that the entire Mangaluru bomb incident was stage-managed by the BJP government to divert attention, Ashoka said the JD(S) functionary "must measure his words" and not speak "like a film director who can project the police as villainous all the time".

"Kumaraswamy is a former CM. When in power, police were his closest friends, but now that he is not in government, the same police are villains," Ashoka said.

The minister reiterated the government’s stand — first floated by home minister Basavaraj Bommai —

that Aditya Rao, the main accused in the Mangaluru bomb incident, is "mentally unstable" and needs to be medically examined.

Renukacharya, meanwhile, justified comments made on Wednesday that the government will not offer Muslims "a special package".

"When they [Muslims] need development funds, they come to us and seek special packages. Once they get funds, they then vote for Congress or JD(S) in elections," Renukacharya said on Thursday. "We do not need people with such double standards. I will apply pressure on all ministers in the cabinet and even the chief minister to ensure they do not allocate any special package for the community."