Modi’s welfare schemes has reached all communities and villages: Kateel

New Delhi, Feb 28: They could hear shots being fired, sense smell of property and vehicles being burnt and feel the stones being pelted. Despite the mayhem that unfolded just a few steps away from their doorsteps, many Muslim households did not feel unsafe due to their Hindu neighbours during the violence in Delhi earlier this week.

Tarannum, a resident of Chand Bagh, said she cannot thank her neighbour Nem Singh enough for saving 15 members of her family that fateful night of February 25. Singh, an auto-rickshaw driver, lives right across her house.

"I could hear the thumping on the door. Our neighbour came to rescue us and assured us that no harm would come to our family, " said Tarannum who lives in lane number 7.

"We thought khayamat has come. Our kids too got scared. Those indulging in rioting are just terrorists. Hindu brothers gave us shelter and saved us. How should I say that they are Hindus or Muslims? When we were under attack, these Hindu brothers provided us safety. We should not fight, " said Tarannum while recounting the horror.

She said a mob has no face, no religion. "I want to tell everyone mob has no name, no religion. Kaun sa pathar kisne mara kisko laga pata hai kya? Pathar ne mazhab dekha kya? (Which stone was thrown by whom, who was hit, does anyone know. Stone does not have a religion," she said.

Singh said he could not bear the wailings of his neighbour's kids.

"Dar to tha par apni gali mein kisi ko pareshan nahi hone dena tha. (I too was afraid but I could not have let them hurt my neighbours)," said Singh when asked if he could have also been attacked for giving shelter to Tarannum family.

"I told them that the rioters will have to go through us first. We all were equally scared," recalled Singh.

Jameel, another local resident, said that his Hindu neighbours were even ready to sacrifice their lives to save him from the ruthless terrorists hired by pro-CAA politicians to unleash violence against Muslims.

Udupi, Jan 14: The Udupi district police on Tuesday arrested two suspected terrorists at the Indrali railway station in Udupi.

The two, who had reportedly arrived from Kerala at around 6 ap.m., were standing at the Indrali railway station platform.

Suspicious of their behaviour, the police took them to custody and subjected them to interrogation.

According to reports the duo had involved in the murder of Tamil Nadu police Special Sub-Inspector Wilson.

However, top cop of the district has refused to comment regarding the arrest of the youths.

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.