No place to store food, send money instead for flood victims: Kodagu district in-charge minister

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, Jul 4: In a heart-wrenching incident, a 65-year-old coronavirus patient at Hanumath Nagar in South Bengaluru died outside his house waiting for an ambulance on Friday evening. The body was kept on the road for more three hours.

The deceased tested positive for coronavirus on Friday and immediately called an ambulance to reach a hospital. However, according to his family members, as he waited for the ambulance for nearly three hours, he collapsed on the road in front of his house complaining of breathlessness and died.

As the body lay unattended on the road, it began to rain heavily. Soon, videos of the body lying on the road in the heavy rain went viral on social media. 

A senior doctor in charge of the division, however, claimed that the ambulance had arrived in less than half an hour but the patient had died before they reached the spot. 

"The patient had given samples on Thursday at KIMS and tested positive on Friday. BBMP officials informed them that they would reach his house. But the man, fearing that he may be stigmatised in the locality, began walking to the corner of the road and collapsed on the street and died," the officer said. 

Another health official from Basavanagudi limits said: "As the ambulance staff do not transport the dead, they informed the hearse van, which was set to arrive in 30 minutes. But due to the sudden rain and heavy traffic ahead of the curfew hours, they were stranded for almost three hours later." The officials also said the deceased had been suffering from cardiac ailments for almost 10 years. 

Regretting the incident, BBMP officials said they were helpless as was an acute shortage of hearse vans. "We were told that there were 20 deaths today and there are only eight hearse vans available. They had to shift this patient after attending to another mortality and were stuck in traffic. By then, due to the fear of infection, nobody attended to the deceased," the officer explained. 

BBMP commissioner B H Anil Kumar said that such incidents should not recur and ordered an investigation and sought a report. "We will ensure that such incidents do not recur," Kumar said.  

Following outrage on social media, a hearse van was summoned and the body was shifted to the Victoria Hospital mortuary as per the protocol. Police have opened a case of unnatural death.

Bengaluru, Feb 28: Historian S. Shettar, 85, breathed his last early on February 28 in Bengaluru. He was suffering from respiratory problems and was hospitalised for over a week.

Shettar was known for his multi-disciplinary work, encompassing linguistics, epigraphy, anthropology, the study of religions and art history. He had extensively worked on the Jain practice of ritual death in Karnataka and Asoka edicts. He had studied and compiled early edicts in Kannada and worked extensively on the growth of Kannada language down the ages.

Born in 1935 at Hampasagara, Ballari district, he went on to study at Cambridge University and started his career as a Professor of History at Karnatak University, Dharwad, his alma mater. He later headed the National Museum Institute of the History of Art, Conservation and Museology in 1978 and Indian Council for Historical Research in 1996. He was also a visiting professor at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru.

He was a bilingual historian who wrote in English for most of his career, but started writing in Kannada in later years. In the last two decades, he developed a keen interest in linguistics and wrote multiple books on classical Kannada and Prakrit. His 2007 book “Shangam Tamilagam” is considered a seminal work in the study of the early period of Dravidian languages. It won him Bhasha Samman from Central Sahitya Akademi. He later wrote two works on Halegannada, classical Kannada. His most recent work was “Prakrita Jagadvalaya” in 2018.