PM Modi's wife Jashodaben suffers minor injuries in road accident, her driver killed

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, Mar 14: Following the footsteps of the neighbouring state Kerala, the state government has decided to deliver groceries to the mid-day meal scheme beneficiaries at the anganwadis.

The state govt has also declared one-week holiday for anganwadis, as a precautionary measure to control the spread of COVID-19 among children.

The respective district administrations have been directed to take necessary steps to ensure that the groceries are delivered to the students’ homes as well.

Bengaluru, Jan 8: The second instalment of flood relief funds from the Centre, announced on Monday, has left BS Yediyurappa less than cheerful, with the chief minister insisting that it is barely adequate. The CM on Tuesday said he will urge the Union government to release more.

On Monday, the Centre announced it will release Rs 669.8 crore in addition to the Rs 1,200 crore it had released earlier towards flood relief and rehabilitation. The total sum is a small fraction of the loss, which the government pegged at a staggering Rs 38,000 crore.

“The Centre has released assistance in two instalments so far, but it is inadequate given the magnitude of the damage. I will request for more funds and I am confident the Centre will oblige,” Yediyurappa told reporters.

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi had visited the state last week, Yediyurappa had urged him — even openly at a function — to release funds. This followed several pleas over the past four months, which barely drew a response from the Centre. Now, the CM himself suggests it’s barely a drop in the ocean.

The opposition has been criticizing both Yediyurappa and the Centre for their handling of the situation and on Tuesday, leader of the opposition Siddaramaiah of the Congress criticised the CM for “misguiding people” on the sum released by the Centre.

Siddaramaiah tweeted, “Reports from State govt officials say only Rs 669 cr of addl funds are released in 2nd instalment as opposed to the claim of Rs 1,870 cr by Karnataka BJP leaders. At a time when manufacturing industries are closing, BJP’s fake news factory is running at full potential ".

In another tweet, he said, “Moved by the plea of chief minister, Yediyurappa, Prime Minister Narendra Modi released an additional Rs 669.8 crore, taking the total amount to Rs 1,869.8 crore. BJP leaders, who are devotees of the god of lies, attempts to depict the total relief amount as 1200+1869.85 = Rs 3,069 cr is ridiculous.”

A high-level committee chaired by Union home minister Amit Shah had sanctioned the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) funds on Monday. While the Press Information Bureau claimed Rs 1,869 crore was approved on Monday, state government officials clarified that the figure included the Rs 1,200 crore released in October.

Meanwhile, sources say the two instalments is all the assistance the state can expect from the Centre towards flood relief. Sources say the Rs 1,870 crore is roughly 60% of the funding — Rs 3,000 cr— which was supposed to be allocated for Karnataka, based on an inter-ministerial team’s assessment of losses in the state.

“Compared to other states for the same period, Karnataka has received the highest amount in flood relief. We cannot expect more,” said a revenue department official, who said the government will not approach the Centre for a special package.

However, revenue minister R Ashoka said the state will pitch for the entire Rs 3,000 crore. “The state government will pursue the matter with the Centre until it releases the entire Rs 3,000 crore. The state government will cover the remainder of the Rs 38,000 crore loss. We will not go back on our word,” Ashoka said. Incidentally, the state has spent about Rs 6,000 crore on relief and rehabilitation so far.