Mangaluru: Tension in Jokatte after murder attempt on BJP worker

New Delhi, Feb 6: BJP MP Tejaswi Surya said on Wednesday that the majority community has to remain vigilant or Mughal rule will return to the country, as he slammed the anti-CAA protest at Shaheen Bagh.

He was participating in the debate on Motion of Thanks on the President's Address in Lok Sabha.

Referring to the ongoing protest at Shaheen Bagh against the Citizenship Amendment Act, he said, "Unless majority community remains vigilant, the days of Mughal Raj may not be far away."

Surya also praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for resolving several critical issues which had been pending for several decades.

The CAA, he said, was aimed at resolving the issues emanating from Partition and added, "The new India cannot to built without healing the wounds of the past."

He said that the CAA was about giving citizenship to persecuted minorities in Pakistan, Bangaladesh and Afghanistan and not for taking away anyone's citizenship.

Under the leadership of Modi, Surya said, several issues of the past have seen closure. These include abrogation of Article 370, construction of Ram temple, Bodo problems and abolition of Triple Talaq.

K Sudhakaran (Cong) said that a time when the economy was going through its worst phase and unemployment was high, the President in his speech talked about making India a USD 5 trillion economy by 2024.

On the comments of the government functionaries that fundamentals of the economy are strong, he said the same expression was used by the then US President George Bush, days before the collapse of the America's iconic investment banker Lehman Brothers.

Not only that, Sudhakaran said even before the Great Depression, the then US President used to say that fundamentals of their economy were strong.

Anupriya Patel (Apna Dal) demanded that the government set up All India Judicial Services Commission to ensure representation of the backward community in the judiciary.

Khagen Murmu (BJP) regretted that West Bengal government was not implementing the welfare schemes of the Centre in the state.

Badruddin Ajmal (AIUDF) said that people of all communities have fought for freedom of the country and it would be incorrect to declare everyone opposing the government's policies as 'gaddar' (traitor).

He said that the government should talk to people protesting against the CAA at Shaheen Bagh and other places, and explain the provisions to them.

Shrirang Appa Barne (Shiv Sena) demanded that the ruling party fulfil all promises it had made to the people of the country.

He regretted that although the government promised to double the income of farmers by 2022, farmers were still committing suicide.

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 26: The National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) on Thursday came up with a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for restaurants whereby among other physical distancing norms, it has suggested a 2-metre gap between tables.

Formulated in partnership with Releski, a Bengaluru based skill-tech company, the SoP suggests that in case of back-to-back seating, people sitting with their backs towards each other will have their seats divided by 'Plexiglass' divider raised up to 2 meters from the ground.

"In a typical restaurant, the improvised seating plan should have a minimum distance of 2 metres between tables. The distance of 2 metres (6 feet) between tables should measure from one edge of the table to the other table's edge," it said.

In case of loose or free seating such as in banquet style or food court style seating, a minimum 2 meters of distance should be maintained between tables.

The guidelines noted that, to encourage physical distancing, restaurants have to sacrifice their seating capacity, to promote health and safety, and also to gain trust from their patrons.

"In order to perform this, divide your restaurants under different sectors. Pull out your restaurant's floor plan and colour code different sections red and yellow. Red sections are potential areas where maximum footfall or traffic is observed. Yellow sections are areas where the footfalls are average," it said.

All the red sections are encircled or bordered by placing barricades or Q manager and will open at specific points to access the yellow section and all the opening points will have hand sanitisers and sprays, and every guest who walks from red zones to yellow zones will sanitise himself/herself to reduce the chances of contamination.

For air conditioning, the guidelines of CPWD shall be followed which inter alia emphasises that the temperature setting of all air conditioning devices should be in the range of 24-30 degree Celsius, relative humidity should be in the range of 40- 65 per cent, intake of fresh air should be as much as possible and cross ventilation should be adequate, the guidelines suggested.

The industry body has also suggested appointment of a COVID-free Ambassador who would operate as the Chief Health Officer within the restaurant team, preferably from the management team in each shift.

The ambassador's would put the new daily work routines into practice, to monitor compliance with good practice and to lead the preventative measures, adapt to health & safety recommendations and requirements of the restaurant and oversee the implementation of the norms.

Anurag Katriar, President of NRAI and CEO & Executive Director of deGustibus Hospitality, said: "Every restaurant cutting across formats is facing the harsh reality of subdued to shut business volumes in the present and the uncertainty of business environment in the future. One thing is certain that hygiene and safety will be a key differentiator in the post-pandemic restaurant operations."