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.
Comments
This is not only your question. my question too. that’s why we should end the mhar competition. Otherwise your son also may follow the same path one day.
Masha Allah! it is good to note that some of our brothers brought the globally acclaimed Islamic Scholar to Mangalore.
It would have been more beneficial for the community if the hosts arranged one two public programs in Mangalore and Kasaragod.
Masha Allah Masha Allah happy to see Mufti Menk at our place.Good message to the youth regarding non-competition over mahr.
My Reply to A Mangalorean. Why did your son agree to pay that much Mehr while it was not under his capacity. May be he tried to show his Father in Law that he is also a rich person. Why one should put himself in debt. Now he will have to pay interest on the loan and this is agaisnt the teaching of Islam. We will not put ourself in trouble if we follow simple way tought by our Prophet. May Allah bless us with right way Islam and keep us away from show up.
Hahaha
I m absolutely delighted that Mufti Menk has visited our place and given lecture on Mahr to Manglorean Muslims.
Hoping to see him again and again !!
Good that mufti menk has taken initiative to end mahr competition. Hope it won’t be the beginning of the ‘mufti competition’. Now another NRI businessman in mangalore may think of bringing numan ali khan for next wedding in family (kidding)
Welcome to mufti menk a renowed international scholar to Mangalore. Mufti should advise the rich muslims of coastal Karnatkada to refrain from luxury marriage style with luxury marriage halls and luxury foods.
Unlucky that i was not part of this event. Mufti Sir do visit Manglore frequetly and guide mangloreans who indulged in shirk and diddah... May god bles you, give you good health and long life.
demanding dowry is not islamic culture. he has given series of lectures on that issue. if you want u can google and listen. but what he did here is a timely decision- he pervented show off. why he should talk about non-islamic system of dowry at a wedding where there was no dowry?
A considerable number of Mangalore muslims have adopted the Hindu custom of dowry. But mhar has not disappeared. At the same time among rich muslims there is definitely competition over mahr. This had happened in my son’s wedding too. he had borrowed huge loan to pay a Rs 50 lakh gold as mahr. so I personally feel that Mufti menk’s initiative is good.
Thants Right, instead of speaking about the dowry system which is demanded by the men as oppose to the mahr he is speaking opposite which is very trivial issue in comparison to what a girl's parents suffer.
Barakallau lakumaa wa baarik alaikumaa wa jam'a bainakumaa fee khair. May Allah(swt) bless the new couple. Ameen.
Mahr was never a competition here. Its all peanuts compared to the jwellery the bride wears from her fathers hard earned money. If not that, then its the brand new car in display outside the wedding hall, again brought by the brides father for the bridegroom.
mufti menk has not realised that most of the bearys hav sold themselves to the indian custom of dowry for demand or for self prestige
Add new comment